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


Raj Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 43017 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13420 (11 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).


Civil Misc. Writ No. 43017 of 2006

Raj Kumar......Petitioner


Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Saharanpur

& others.....Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Challenge has been made to the order dated 29.2.2000 allowing the revision filed by contesting   respondents no. 3 and 4 and the order dated 27.3.2006 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to recall the order dated 29.2.2000.

The recall application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he was not served with any notice or summon and the alleged service of notice on him is forged and fabricated. The said application of the petitioner was contested by contesting respondents by filing objection stating therein that notices were duly served upon the petitioner and he appeared in the proceeding and the order was passed after hearing him. It was also stated that vide order dated 29.2.2000, no change was made in the chak of the petitioner and only clerical mistake with regard to valuation was corrected as such also the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the restoration application which was filed after a lapse of 5 years, has recorded a finding that the summons were duly served personally on the petitioner and as such the order was not ex parte and the explanation submitted by him for delay in filing the said application is not at all convincing and it cannot be presumed that he did not have any notice or knowledge of the proceeding.

Further from a bare perusal of judgment dated 29.2.2000, it becomes clear that only the excess valuation allotted in the chak of the petitioner by mistake has been adjusted, thus in effect, no change was brought about in the chak of the petitioner by which he can be said to be aggrieved and for this reason the order dated 29.2.2000 also does not call for any interference by this Court.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.



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.