Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TELLU & OTHERS versus COLLECTOR, SAHARANPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tellu & Others v. Collector, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - C No. 39317 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12329 (26 July 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have approached this Court by means of this writ petition being aggrieved  by an order passed by Assistant Collector dated 28th January 2006 which has been affirmed by the Collector by order dated 3rd July 2006 whereby in a proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the petitioners, after being afforded opportunity of adducing evidence, have been declared to be unauthorized occupants of Plot No.410.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to statement made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition wherein the petitioners have asserted that they are not in possession over Plot No.410 referred to above and further they are not concerned with the aforesaid plot as they have not claimed any right over plot no.410.

In view of the above statement, even if there is an order passed by the authorities directing eviction of the petitioners from plot no.410 that in no way affects petitioners' right to their property. That apart both the authorities have categorically recorded finding that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the plot in dispute which they could not demonstrate that they are in any way entitled to continue in possession. In my opinion in view of what has been stated above the petitioners cannot resist the process of eviction in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 122 B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

This writ petition, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 26.7.2006

mhu - 39317/06


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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