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


Kuldeep v. Shiv Shanker & Others - WRIT - B No. 44812 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14303 (24 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).


"Court No. 4"

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44812 of 2006.



Shiv Shanker and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ballia dated 16th June, 2006, whereby the prayer made by the contesting respondents with regard to stay of the measurement (Paimaish) of the further proceedings, has been granted, approached the Board of Revenue by means of revision under section 219 of the Land Revenue Act.  The Board of Revenue has found that the earlier order passed by the Additional Collector does the substantial justice between the parties and since the measurement is not completed, therefore no final order has been passed as yet thus no further order is required so long the earlier order remain, the revision filed by the petitioner therefore was dismissed.  Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner again approached the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) by means of an application, which too was rejected by him, thus this writ petition.

To me it appears that the substantial justice has been done between the parties by the impugned order.  There is yet another reason that the order in question is only an interim order, which will merge into final order.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the orders impugned in the present writ petition suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dated: 24.08.2006.



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.