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


Ram Swarath & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 38354 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15152 (1 September 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. 38354 of 2006.

Ram Swarath and another


State of U.P., through its Secretary (Revenue),

U.P. at Lucknow and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

The petitioner's father has been served with a notice in form  49-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (here-in-after shall be referred to as 'the Act'), thereupon he filed an objection that the proceedings initiated against him under Section 122-B of 'the Act' do not attract the aforesaid provision and the petitioner shall not be liable to be evicted from the land in dispute.  In the objection, the petitioner further stated that he has not encroached upon any land, what to say upon Chak road and therefore the notice issued to him deserves to be discharged.  The Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (judicial), Tehsil Sadar, Jaunpur vide its order dated 15th April, 2002 directed eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute and further imposed damages amounting to Rs.2,000/-.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tehsildar, the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional Court/Upper Ziladhikari (F/R), Jaunpur.  Before the revisional Court, the petitioner raised same arguments as were advanced before the Tehsildar concerned.  The revisional Court after considering the material evidence on record and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner found that the petitioner's occupation over the land in dispute is that of un-authorized occupant and affirmed the findings recorded by the Tehsildar concerned.  The revisional Court vide its order dated 26th June, 2006 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and maintained the order passed by the Tehsildar concerned.

Before this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised the same arguments as were advanced before the authorities below.  It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute has not been measured.  A perusal of the order passed by the Tehsildar concerned clearly demonstrate that the land in dispute has been measured in the very presence of the petitioner and no

- 2 -

objection has been raised by the petitioner before it, in this regard.  No other material has been brought before this Court, which may 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, I do not find it to be a fit case for interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition by this Court.  This writ petition therefore has no force and is accordingly dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dated: 01.09.2006.



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.