Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DASHRATH & OTHERS versus NAKHROO & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dashrath & Others v. Nakhroo & Others - WRIT - C No. 34894 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14002 (22 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

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34894 of 2006

Dashrath & others.............Petitioners

Versus

Nakharoo & Others ...Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Krishan Ji Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

The facts are that an application dated 28.6.88 moved by the Nakharoo/respondent no. 1 under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction in C.H. Form 23, C.H. Form 40, C.H. Form 41 and Naksha Bandobasti according to chak map. On the said application, a report was called for and Naib Tehsildar submitted a report dated 24.11.1988 along with sketch map showing the changed situation and position of plot no. 51. In the aforesaid proceedings, an application for impleadment was filed by the petitioners stating therein that an area of 15 Biswa, 1 Dhur of disputed plot no. 31 belongs to them and they are being affected and shall be ejected by the changed demarcation submitted by Naib Tehsildar in his report. It was stated in the said application that the land belongs to Aerodrum. In 1948 the same was given to them by Sri Jawaharlal Nehru and as such they became ''Asami' of the Central Government.  The trial Court vide order dated 17.2.1993 accepted the report submitted by Naib Tehsildar and ordered for necessary correction in respect of situation and position of plot no. 31 accordingly. With regard to the petitioners it was held that they have no right, title or interest over the plot no. 31 as the same belongs to the Central Government and hence they are not liable to be impleaded. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision which has also been dismissed vide order dated 4.3.2006. The revisional Court has also confirmed the finding of the trial court.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute for a long time as such they cannot be ejected in summary proceeding. It has further been held that ancestor of the contesting respondents had filed a suit under Section 229 B/209 of U.P. Z. A. and L.R. Act for declaration of his right over an area of 2 Bigha, 2 Biswa, 11 Dhur of Plot no. 31 and ejectment of the ancestor of the petitioners from a area of 15 Biswa, 1 Dhur of Plot no. 31 which was in their possession. The dispute was finally decided in appeal  by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Region Varanasi and the suit for ejectment of the petitioners from the area of 15 Biswa, one Dhur of Plot no. 31 was dismissed.

Be that as it may, it is undisputed that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition the petitioner has himself stated that till date no action by the authority of Aerodrum has been taken for ejectment of the petitioners from the area of 15 Biswa, one Dhur of plot no. 31 which is in their possession.

The Courts below have also recorded a finding that an area of 15 Biswa, one Dhur is recorded in the name of Aerodrum. The petitioners being unauthorized occupants over the land belonging to the Government, have no vested right in the property and any objection filed by them in the proceedings for correction initiated by respondent is not maintainable. The orders impugned in the writ petition have been passed by the authorities on the basis of report submitted by Naib Tehsildar after spot inspection and the same does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. The Courts below have rightly rejected the impleadment sought by the petitioners. There is no force in the writ petition and the same accordingly stands dismissed.

Dt.22.8.2006


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.