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


Bhagirathi & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 59189 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18293 (30 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.  59189 of 2006

Bhagirathi & Others...............Petitioners


State of U.P. & Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent no. 3/ Gaon Sabha.

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The facts are that the petitioners claim to have been allotted lease of the disputed plots in the year 1981 and accordingly their names came to be recorded on the revenue records. An application dated 21.1.2006 was filed by Pradhan of Gaon Sabha for expunging the name of certain persons whose names were recoded over the land of Gaon Sabha. On the said application, a report was called for and Tehsildar submitted  report dated 17.3.2006. In the said report, it was mentioned that the names of the petitioners have also wrongly been recorded over the plots of Gaon Sabha. On the basis of the report of Tehsildar, Sub divisional Officer vide order dated 10.4.2006 directed the names of the petitioners to be expunged from the land in dispute on the ground that their names have wrongly and illegally been recorded over the land of Gaon Sabha. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

It has been alleged that the names of the petitioners  were recorded over the land in dispute after following the procedure prescribed under the law and their names have been directed to be expunged from the record without issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing to them. Categorical averments in this regard have been made in paragraph 10 and 11 of the writ petition.

From a perusal of the impugned order filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, it also becomes clear that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and their names were directed to be expunged only on the report of Tehsildar which was an ex parte report.

The petitioners have been in continuous possession over the land in dispute on the basis of allotment made in their favour since 1981 and their names have also been recorded in the revenue records as such they are entitled to be heard before passing any order. The impugned order passed in violation of the principles of nature justice, cannot be sustained.

In view of aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 10.4.2006 passed by respondent no. 2 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Sub divisional Officer, Itwa, Distt. Siddharthnagar to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as other concerned parties.

Dt. 30.10.2006


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.