Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KISHORE & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' ADDL. COMMISSIONER IIND & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kishore & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Addl. Commissioner Iind & Others - WRIT - C No. 40063 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12681 (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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40063 of 2006

Ram Kishore and others   ....    vs.    Additional Commissioner II, Allahabad & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri I.M. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners.

An application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed by respondent no.3 and others for correction of map of plot no. 1270 situate in village Gamarahata, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad. It was alleged that the area of the plot was shown less in the map and the same should be corrected. The proceedings were contested by the petitioners alleging that the area of the said plot shown in the map is correct. A report was called for. The Naib Tehsildar, Phoolpur submitted a report dated 10.3.1989 stating that in CH Form-41 the area of plot no. 1270 is 1-0-0 whereas that of adjoining plot no. 1271 is 1-8-0. However, in the map the area of plot no. 1270 is shown as 0-17-5 and that of plot no. 1271 is 1-12-15. Thus the area of plot no. 1270 is less by 0-2-15 whereas that of plot no. 1271 has increased. Respondent no.2 vide order dated 10.3.1989 allowed the application filed by the contesting respondents. The petitioners went up in revision. The revisional court confirmed the finding recorded by respondent no.2 and has dismissed the revision. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

From a perusal of the impugned judgement, it goes to show that both the courts below have based the judgement on the report of the Naib Tehsildar which was made after spot inspection and allowed the application filed by the contesting respondents. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.

Dt.1.8.2006

Nd/wp-40063-06


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.