HIRA LAL YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Hira Lal Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 52449 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16474 (20 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner, aggrieved by an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda dated 10th July 2006, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The further prayer made by the petitioner is that District Magistrate be directed to hand over legal possession of the land Gata No.678 Rakba 0-015 hectare which has already been allotted to the petitioner on 22nd December 1995. The impugned order deals with the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the Commissioner records a finding that the court below has expressed the view that the land was allotted to the petitioner, Hira Lal Yadav, by the lease deed dated 22nd December 1995 for raising residential house but the petitioner has not raised any construction till 2002. In these circumstances the Gaon Sabha has allotted the house site  to contesting respondent, Bablu. The court below has made a spot inspection and found that no construction has been raised by the petitioner and the land is lying vacant and the land is not in possession of the petitioner, Hira Lal Yadav. In these circumstances the prayer made by the petitioner that the lease deed executed in favour of contesting respondent, Bablu, deserves to be cancelled, does not found favour with the Commissioner and a revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the order impugned in the writ petition suffers from any error much less an error apparent on the face of record which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except that he stated that he is in possession of the land in dispute. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not supported by any material on the record.

This writ petition, therefore, has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 20.9.2006.

mhu - 52449/06

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.