MUKTI NATH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Mukti Nath v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 6999 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17226 (5 October 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

Court No. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6999 of 2006

Mukti Nath             vs.            State of U.P. & another

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

Proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short ''the Act') was initiated against one Smt. Girija Devi wife of  Indrajeet and vide order dated 3.3.1975 certain land including plot no. 1355 was declared surplus. However, due to inadvertent mistake, while giving details of the plots of various villages which were to be declared surplus, plot no. 1352 was mentioned instead of 1355. The petitioner who is Bhumidhar of the said plot could come to know the fact when the authorities sought to dispossess him. An objection under Section 12(2) of the Act was filed by him on 12.1.2006 to the effect that the plot no. 1352 was wrongly mentioned in the operative portion of the judgment whereas it should be 1355.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that objection filed by the petitioner is pending and he is under threat of being dispossessed.

A perusal of the order of the Prescribed Authority filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition goes to show that in the entire body of the judgment, discussion has been made with regard to plot no. 1355 but in the operative portion of the order, plot no. 1352 has been mentioned.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Collector, Kushinagar/Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) to decide the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him in accordance with law after notice to all concerned.

Till disposal of the objection as directed aforesaid, the dispossession of the petitioner from plot no. 1352 situate in village Sauraha Khurd Tehsil Padrauna District Kushinagar shall remain stayed.

Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

Dt.5.10.2006

Nd.

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.