Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTOSH KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY REVENUE LUCKNOW & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Santosh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Revenue Lucknow & Others - WRIT - B No. 43581 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13542 (17 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. 43581 of 2006

Santosh Kumar .......................   Petitioner.

                       Vs.

State of U.P. and others ............   Respondents.

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for contesting respondent.

This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act') initiated by the petitioner. The facts are that the petitioner filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming rights over the land in dispute as adopted son of the deceased recorded tenure-holder. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.11.1991 allowed the objection on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The said order was challenged by respondent no.3 who is claiming rights on the basis of natural succession. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 1.3.2002 allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 17.6.2006.

Both the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation have recorded a finding that another objection filed by the petitioners with regard to the same property seeking same relief which was numbered as 1039/1040 was already dismissed and as such the second objection was not maintainable.

Both the courts below have rightly held that second objection seeking same relief was not maintainable.

There is no illegality in the order  impugned in the writ petition.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.

Dt.17.8.2006


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.