Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARIHAR YADAV & ANOTHER versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AT ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harihar Yadav & Another v. The Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 40097 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12638 (1 August 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

"Court No. 4"

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40097 of 2006.

Harihar Yadav and another

Versus

The Board of Revenue U.P., at Allahabad and others

...........

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 26th April, 2006 primarily on the ground that the order impugned before the Board of Revenue was an ex-parte order which has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners.  I have gone through the order passed by the Sub-District Magistrate, Belthara Road, Ballia and also the order passed by The Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad.  The Board of Revenue has categorically recorded a finding that the said order is not an ex-parte order, therefore this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted that the order impugned is an ex-parte order, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners have not challenged the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue that this is not an ex-parte order.  On the question of merit, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to demonstrate that the order impugned in the present writ petition in any way suffers from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dated: 01.8.2006.

Rks


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.