Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMBIKA PRASAD & OTHERS versus BOARD OF REVENUE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ambika Prasad & Others v. Board Of Revenue & Others - WRIT - B No. 25444 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 16847 (26 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. Janardan Sahai,J

A suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioners preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad Division, Allahabad on 14.8.03. Against that order the respondents 6 and 7 filed a second appeal in the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal by its impugned order dated 14.3.05.  

         The case of the plaintiffs petitioners that they have matured their title by adverse possession was not accepted by the trial court but the Addl. Commissioner has reversed the decree and found the plaintiffs' possession proved. The Board of Revenue has found that the petitioners have not been able to prove their title by adverse possession.

I have heard Sri H.S. Misra counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.S. Srivastva counsel for respondent no.6. Respondent no.7 did not appear despite service of notice.

It is submitted by the petitioners' counsel that the Board of Revenue did not frame any substantial question of law. By virtue of Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to second appeals under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 100 of the CPC provides for faming substantial questions of law. As the Board has not framed any substantial question of law, its order dated 14.3.05 is set aside and the case is sent back to the Board of Revenue for fresh decision on merits after framing substantial question of law and giving opportunity to the counsel for the parties  It is made clear that no opinion is being expressed upon the merits of the case by this court. The Board of Revenue shall try to decide the appeal within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

Dt:26.9.06sm

Wp25444/05


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.