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


Smt. Shanti Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy (Revenue) U.P., Lkw. Ors. - WRIT - C No. 39056 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13689 (18 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 Petition No. 39056 of 2006

Smt. Shanti Devi


State of U. P. and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard  Sri D. S. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. S. Misra appearing for the contesting respondent no. 4.

The facts are that  the recorded tenure-holder Ram Avadh executed a sale deed dated 20.5.2004 in respect of land in dispute in favour of contesting respondents no. 4 and 5. On the basis of the said sale deed they applied  for mutation of their names in the revenue record. The petitioner filed her objection in the said proceedings stating that Ram Avadh recorded tenure-holder was her father-in-law and the land in dispute was ancestoral and her late husband and father-in-law had joint share but the property was recorded in the name of her father-in-law in his capacity as ''Karta' of the family. On 14.7.2004 mutation application filed by respondents no. 4 and 5 was dismissed in default. Thue contesting respondents moved an application dated 25.8.2004 to recall the said order. The respondent no. 3 vide order dated 3.2.2005 allowed the application and restored the case to its original number. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed on 6.6.2006.

Revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that by the order dated 3.2.2005 only proceedings were restored to its original number and the petitioner will have full opportunity to contest the case on merits.

I see no infirmity either in the order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the respondent no. 3 by which the proceedings were restored to its original number nor in the revisional order dismissing the revision which may require any interference by this Court.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby 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.