Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHANKAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shankar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 3539 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1755 (23 January 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.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3539 of 2006

Shanker & Ors.

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to restore possession in favour of the petitioners over the land which had been allotted to them by giving pattas as the said land had been declared surplus under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the present petitioners had been given patta of the land which had been declared surplus under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. They had been put in possession but had subsequently been dispossessed by the persons in whose favour the land had been transferred by the tenure holders. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that this Court should issue direction to the respondent authorities to restore possession.

Petitioners, for the reasons best known to them, have not filed copies of the patta nor there is anything on record to show that they had been put in possession. Petitioners have not mentioned any date on which they had been dispossessed nor they have explained as to who had dispossessed them and as to why the petitioners remained silent at the time of their dispossession. The persons who claim to be in possession of the land in dispute are not parties before us.

Petition is based on vague pleadings without any document to substantiate the said vague pleadings. In such a fact situation, we are not in a position to interfere in the matter. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

23.01.2006

AHA


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.