Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHHAKKU LAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chhakku Lal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 530 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1378 (19 January 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. 19.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 530 of 2006

Jamir Hasan Vs. State of U.

....

Hon. A.K.Singh,J.

Heard and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed  for seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing  the impugned order dated 26.2.2005 passed by the respondent No.2/ Pargana Magistrate, Nagina, district Bijnor (annexure-8) as also an order dated 23.11.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, district Bijnor (annexure-10). Further  direction  in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents  to maintain status quo has also been sought.

The learned S.D.M., after scanning  all the evidence on record found that the first party (petitioner) could not prove its case while the other party (respondent)  proved its  possession  and therefore  it recalled  preliminary order dated 23.6.2004 and directed the S.O. concerned to take the possession of land in question   from the petitioner and to handover to the respondent. Being aggrieved with this order  the petitioner preferred  a revision before the Sessions Judge. It was contended  before  the revisional court  that they have inherited the land in question beings sons of deceased Budhu. On the other hand  it was maintained  that the opposite parties  are in possession of the land in question for the reason  that its one part  was sold by deceased Budhu while rest of the land was inherited by them by will. It was further contended on behalf of the revisionist/petitioner  that a civil suit in respect of sale deed in question is pending in the court of Civil Judge ( Junior Division) Nagina and hence the matter is subjudice. Similarly the will in question on the basis of which remaining part of the land  is claimed  to be in the possession of opposite parties  has also been challenged in the court of Consolidation Officer. The learned Sessions Judge found  that the revisionist  claimed himself to be owner in possession one third share of the land but there was no such documentary evidence to show  that the land in question was ever partitioned. The revisional court  was not supposed to enter into the merits of ownership. However, it did not find any illegality or material irregularity or anything otherwise in respect of jurisdiction and hence it refused  to interfere with the order passed by the learned S.D.M.

Learned counsel for the petitioner  while  referring to the memo of revision  (page 54)  argued  that the learned Sessions Judge did not apply his mind and did not consider some of the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.

I have gone through aforesaid memo of revision wherein some of the grounds pertain to facts which normally the revisional court was not supposed to deal with. It was only required to look into the correctness, legality and propriety of the finding and those points have been properly looked into. Neither any illegality nor any material irregularity was found in the order in question. Nothing was also found otherwise in respect of  exceeding jurisdiction or not exercising jurisdiction vested in it.  The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Judge  under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is parallel and equivalent and the matter in question has already been look into by the court of Sessions. The writ jurisdiction is discretionary and there does not appear to be any good ground to invoke its extra ordinary jurisdiction in the present matter.

In view of the above, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. Hence it is dismissed.

Dt. 19.1.2006

Rkb.        


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.