Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BADRI SINGH versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AT ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Badri Singh v. Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & Others - WRIT - C No. 41936 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12960 (4 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.41936 of 2006

Badri Singh

Versus

Board of Revenue and others

_____

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has approached this Court by means of this writ petition being  aggrieved by the order passed by Board of Revenue dated 26th July 2006 whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by its subordinate authority and directed the Commissioner to decide the controversy regarding grant of interim order after affording opportunity to the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have not challenged the order dated 7th April 2006 yet the said order has been set aside by the Board of Revenue. A perusal of provisions of Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, which are quoted below, clearly demonstrates that in view of powers conferred by the aforesaid Section 333 the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted:-

"333. Power to call for cases. - (1) The Board of the Commission or the Additional Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding other than proceeding under Sub-section (4-A) of Section 198 decided by any court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding and if such subordinate court appears to have:

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner, as the case may be, may pass such order in the case as he thinks fit.

(2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner or to the Additional Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them."

Even otherwise since the Board of Revenue has done complete justice between the parties by passing an equitable order this Court declines to interfere 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.

Dt: 4.8.2006.

mhu.


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.