Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 37617 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12491 (28 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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37617 of 2006

Rajendra and others.............Petitioners

Versus

State of U.P. & Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The relief claimed in the writ petition is to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 namely State of U.P., The District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meerut and their subordinate revenue officials including Field Staff from making the measurement of Khasra Plot No. 6/1 and 7 and from delivering possession prior to the disposal of the application moved by the respondents No. 4 to 6 under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act (for short the ''Act').

The facts are that respondents no. 4 to 6 moved an application under Section 41 of the Act for demarcating the boundary of their Khasra Plot No. 7. It has been alleged that respondents are influential people and having political links with the ruling party and are politically pressuring the respondents no. 2 and 3 to illegally demarcate the Khasra Plot No.7 and hand over the possession to them. The apprehension of the petitioners appears to be totally unfounded. Except for making bald allegation, no material has been brought on record to substantiate the same. There is nothing on record to indicate that respondents-authorities are proceedings in an illegal or arbitrary manner. The respondents no. 4 to 6 have moved an application under Section 41 of the Act on the basis of which the proceedings have been initiated. The apprehension of the petitioners that even during the pendency of the proceedings they will be dispossessed is totally ill founded.

In such circumstances, the relief claimed in the writ petition can not be allowed.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Dt.25.7.2006


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.