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


Ram Ujagir v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 58860 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18193 (27 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58860 of 2006

Ram Ujagir


State of U. P. and others                    

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri K. S. Tiwari, learned  for the petitioner.

The main relief claimed in the writ petition is a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to issue ''Amaldaramad'  in consequence of the order dated 20.2.2006 passed in Case No. 7/85 under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act (for short the ''Act').  

The facts are that the petitioner along with his two brothers filed an application under Section 33/39 of the Act which was allowed vide order dated 20.6.2006. Thereafter, the contesting respondent no. 6 moved an application dated 28.6.2006 for recall of the order mainly on the ground that the order of the Consolidation Officer  dated 26.9.1991 which was sought to be implemented by initiating proceeding is pending adjudication in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation  wherein operation of the said order has been stayed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo. Tehsildar vide order dated 28.6.2006 invited objection on the said application and further directed that Parvana Amaldaramad be not issued. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision. The revisional court disposed of the revision by directing the court   below to decide the restoration application.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the observations made by the revisional court,   Tehsildar ought to issue ''Parvana Amaldaramad' for execution of the order dated 20.6.2006.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Since an application to recall the order dated 20.6.2006 filed by respondent no. 6 is pending, there appears to be no justification to issue ''Parvana Amaldaramad' for execution of the said order. The Tehsildar has rightly call for objection on the recall application and has stayed issuance of ''Parvana Amaldaramad' .

I find no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly  fails and is dismissed.



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.