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


Shiv Charan v. The Collector Fatehpur, Dist. Fatehpur & Others - WRIT - C No. 55299 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17312 (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).


Court No.40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  55299 of 2006

Shiv Charan ...............Petitioner


Collector, Fatehpur District Fatehpur

& Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard Sri Sanjeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petition arises out of proceedings under Sections 34/35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. It is alleged that on the death of Sawani, recorded tenure holder, the name of the petitioner who was only surviving son and heir of deceased, was mutated in his place vide order dated 20.2.2002 passed by Tehsildar. Subsequently, respondents no. 3 and 4 claiming to be wife and son respectively of predeceased son Kali Charan of deceased Sawani, moved an application for recalling the order dated 20.2.2002. The Tehsildar vide order dated 2.6.2002 allowed the restoration application and recalled his earlier order dated 20.2.2002.  Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 7.8.2006. Recall application was moved on the ground that respondent no. 3 was living along with her son in Fatehpur and no notice or summons was ever served upon her. The Tehsildar allowed the application on the findings that no notice or summons was served upon her as such the said order is liable to be recalled. The same finding has been confirmed by the revisional Court.

The recall application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that respondent no. 3, after death of her husband Kali Charan, had remarried, as such lost her right in property and respondent no. 4 was begotten out of second wedlock as such he also got no right in the property. Both the courts below have held that these facts, asserted by the petitioner, require to be investigated and established.

I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. 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.