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 Narayan & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 51634 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16227 (18 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. 51634 of 2006

Ram Narayan and others


State of U.P. and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners call in question the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 31st August 2006 whereby a revision filed by the petitioners against the order whereby the court below has directed that respondent no.6, Manka, may also be heard before adjudication of petitioners' application under Section 161 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The courts below have found that the order passed in favour of the petitioners were ultimately set aside by the Board of Revenue by its earlier order dated 12th June 2001 which has not been challenged by any party and this order became final.

The petitioners have now come up with the case that the land since has been allotted to them, respondent no.6, Manka, will have no right, therefore, the view taken by the Board of Revenue and the subordinate authorities are illegal which deserves to be quashed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the record it is apparent that the earlier order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 12th June 2001 has not been challenged by anybody and the same has become final, therefore, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 161 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act be decided after giving an opportunity to the contesting respondent no.6, Manka. The challenge to the allotment made in favour of respondent no.6, Manka, has also become final when the order was passed by the Collector. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner by means of revision resulting into the impugned order.

I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the Collector and the Board of Revenue that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case where it can be demonstrated that respondent No.6, Manka, should not be heard while deciding the application of the petitioners under Section 161 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. I do not find any force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 18.9.2006.



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.