Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vijendra Singh & Another v. The Addl. Commissioner & Others - WRIT - C No. 39794 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12733 (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).


"Court No. 4"

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39794 of 2006.

Vijendra Singh and another


The Additional Commissioner  (Judicial), Moradabad

Division, Moradabad and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

The petitioners, who were admittedly granted Aasami Patta for a period of five years pursuant whereof the petitioners came in possession in sometime in March, 1998, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29th June, 2001, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Bijnor and the order dated 24th March, 2005, passed by Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad on the ground that they are in possession over the land in dispute, which covers the original lease deed and further that the lease should have been granted to the petitioners because the land in dispute is said to be pond, which is a land of the public utility, besides they are aggrieved and scheduled caste persons to whom the Assami Patta should be given.

An objection has been raised on behalf of the contesting respondent that since the term of the lease granted to the petitioners even assuming the same to be in accordance with law, has already expired in the year 2003, the petitioners do not have any subsisting right, therefore the petitioners cannot be granted any relief by this Court in view of the fact that the petitioners were granted Aasami Patta for a period of five years has not been disputed by the petitioners.  In this circumstance, this Court decline to interfere on the ground that after the expiry of five years from the date the petitioners came in possession pursuant to the aforesaid lease deed, the petitioners have no right over the land in dispute.

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

Dated: 01.8.2006.



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


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 |

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