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


Bal Kalyan Samiti v. D.M. And Another - WRIT - A No. 73133 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 15836 (12 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.7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.73133 of 2005

Bal Kalyan Samiti, Bareilly


District Magistrate, Bareilly   and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Notices were issued to the  respondent no.4 and in view of office report dated 13.7.2006 the service upon respondent no.4 is deemed sufficient under the  Rules of Court. Sri V.N.Pandey has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.3. Learned Standing counsel appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who claims himself to be a society has sought direction to the respondent nos.1 and 2 to take step for delivery of possession of the allotted portion of house no.35A/10 Rampur Garden, Bareilly in pursuance of allotment order dated 8.1.1992 passed by respondent no.1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although Form-C ( order to unauthorized occupant to vacate) was issued on 5.12.1998, respondent nos.1 and 2 have not taken any step to deliver the possession to the petitioner.

In the counter affidavit respondent nos.1 and 2 have stated  that the petitioner is not a registered society and no certificate of registration has been filed by them. Consequently the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed before this court.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the stand taken  by respondent nos.1 and 2 with respect to not being a registered society is factually incorrect apart from the fact that there is an order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that order of allotment  dated 8.1.1992 is still operative and no proceeding has been initiated against the same nor any proceeding is pending and as such the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed.


In view of above, it is provided that in case the petitioner makes an application before the  respondent no.2, he  shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date such an  application is made alongwith certified copy of this order. It is made clear that respondent no.2 will issue notice to the landlord and any other person who may be claiming any right in the property in question. The question of limitation if it arises  may also be considered by respondent no.2.

The writ petition is disposed of finally. No order is passed as to costs.




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.