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


Amar Nath v. Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad & Others - WRIT - C No. 53373 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16766 (25 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53373     of 2006

Amar Nath          


Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Kamlesh Tiwari,  learned counsel for the  petitioner.

The facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under :

Petitioner moved an application under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act for demarcation of plot no. 186. Notices were issued and a report was called for. Revenue Inspector submitted his report dated  7.11.2004 which was confirmed by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 18.5.2006. Subsequently, the respondents no. 9 to 13 moved an application for recalling  the order dated 18.5.2006 on the ground that it was passed exparte without any notice or opportunity to them. The respondent no. 2 issued notice to the petitioner fixing 19.6.2006 and in the meantime stayed the operation of the alleged exparte order dated 18.5.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision. The revisional court vide order dated 21.6.2006 has dismissed the revision on the ground that the order impugned is an interlocutory order as such the revision was not maintainable.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the order dated 18.5.2006 was passed after issuing notice, the recall application has wrongly been entertained and in any view of the matter, there was no scope for passing any stay order.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The respondent no. 2 while issuing notice on the recall application finding that in case the order dated 18.5.2006 is given effect to it may cause loss to the respondent stayed its operation. I find no illegality  committed by the respondent no. 2 in passing the said order. The revision filed against the said order has rightly been dismissed by the revisional court as not maintainable.

There is no illegality in the impugned orders. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.



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.