Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RATAN SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ratan Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 55372 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17307 (6 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

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners, being objectors of the allotment of Gaon Sabha land in favour of respondents No.4 to 30, challenged the leases granted in favour of respondents. The matter was taken up by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut who has dealt with each and every objection of the petitioners with regard to allotment procedure which has resulted into execution of leases in favour of respondents and found that there is no procedural defect in grant and sanction of leases. Thus the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to grant of leases in favour of respondents has been rejected. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred a revision before the revisional authority which had been decided by the revisional authority by the order impugned in the present writ petition. The revisional authority maintained the order passed by the Additional Commissioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised objections and submitted that this Court should sit in appeal in the findings arrived at by both the authorities in order to judge the validity of allotment. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any error or perversity in the orders impugned in the writ petition. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash, (2004) 3 SCC 682, this Court will not sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the courts below unless the same is demonstrated to be either perverse or suffering from any error apparent on the face of record. As already stated both the authorities have recorded concurrent findings with regard to petitioners objections regarding procedural defects and found that the leases were executed in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Respondents are fully eligible persons.

In this view of the matter I do not find any force in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 6.10.2006.

mhu - 55372/06


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.