Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ajay & Others v. Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 74941 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7304 (12 December 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


                                                                                              Court No.5.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 74941 of  2005.

Ajay & Others ......... ......... ........... Petitioners


Board of Revenue, U.P. at

Allahabad and others ............ ......... ..Respondents


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

Heard Shri B.B. Paul learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manish Goyal who has appeared for respondent no.5 Nagar Palika/Nagar Nigam  Aligarh.

A suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by the petitioners, which was decreed by the trial court and the decree was affirmed in appeal. A second appeal was filed by respondent nos. 7 to 11 against the decree which is pending in the Board of Revenue.  The Board of Revenue has admitted the appeal and has stayed the operation of the orders of the courts below. The petitioners who are the plaintiffs had filed a caveat before the Board of Revenue. They  have challenged the order of the Board of Revenue in this writ petition.

Shri B.B. Paul counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a finding recorded by the trial court which was affirmed in first appeal that the petitioner is in possession and that in pursuance of the decree passed by the courts below the names of the petitioners have been entered in the revenue records and the decree has thus been given effect to. The challenge to the Board's order has also been made on the ground that the petitioners were caveators and therefore it was incumbent upon the Board of Revenue to have passed the order after giving reasons, which it has not done.  He relied upon Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as regards the rights of the caveator and submitted that on a true interpretation of the scope of Section 148-A CPC it would emerge that the court must apply mind to the caveators objections and pass a reasoned order. He also relied upon certain decisions. The decisions referred to are: AIR 1978 Calcutta 492 Nirmal Chandra Dutta Vs. Girindera Narayan Roy and others  and  AIR 1987 ALR 622  Pheru Singh Vs. Nayadar  as regards  the nature of the right under Section 148-A of CPC and the purpose of lodging a caveat. The other decisions relied upon are 2003 (3) AWC 2041 Badri and others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation  Ghazipur and others  and  2004 (1) AWC 125 Gajraj Singh Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation Bulandshahar and others {2004 (1) AWC 125.}

In Badri's case it was held that the court ought to have applied its mind to evidence on record and if an order is a cryptic one as in that case it is liable to be set aside. Similar view has been taken in Gajraj Singh's case. In the present case the petitioners were heard by the Board of Revenue.  The Board of Revenue has admitted the appeal on certain substantial questions of law. It cannot therefore be said that there is no application of mind. Admission of an appeal on certain substantial questions of law itself implies that the court has applied mind. Moreover the stay application has not been decided finally. The Board has fixed a date on 18.1.2006 and granted the interim order till then and on that date the Board proposes to hear the matter. The decisions in Badri and Gajraj (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners relate to final orders deciding the case and are therefore distinguishable. The other two cases aforesaid do not hold anything, which may indicate that the order passed by the Board is not in accordance with law. In the instant case the second appeal is pending and even the stay application has not been disposed of finally. Moreover contesting respondents in the writ petition are not represented and issuing notice to them would obviously delay the matter. The Board has already fixed 18.1.2006 as the next date and it may not be possible for this court to consider the matter earlier after service on the respondents. For all these reasons, the order does not call for any interference.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.