High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nishar Ahmad v. The Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Vindhyachal Div. & Others - WRIT - C No. 75489 of 2005  RD-AH 7610 (15 December 2005)
Hon. S.N. Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and carefully considered the materials on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in the sale deed executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of petitioner, he himself mentioned a ''Rasta' of 4 ft. for ingress and egress. Learned counsel for petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the contents of the sale deed in this regard and urged that 6 Dhur land was wrongly held to be of Respondent no.3 He further urged that in case Respondent no.3 is allowed to take possession of 6 Dhur land on the basis of the impugned order, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.
From perusal of the record, it clearly transpires that the finding recorded by the authorities below that Respondent No.3 had one third share out of which he transferred major part of the land, but still he is tenureholder of 6 Dhur land does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record.
It is further borne out from the record that a Civil Suit for injunction is pending before the Civil Court. The question of ''Rasta' or rights through that ''Rasta' cannot be decided in the summary proceeding under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The authorities below have rightly held that they are not competent to decide the question of ''Rasta'. It is further held that any order passed by the authorities in exercise of powers under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are always subject to the suit.
With above observations, writ petition is finally disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.