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


Sanjeev Kumar & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 59433 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18484 (1 November 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).


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh, Standing Counsel, in opposition of this writ petition.

The petitioner aggrieved by an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, whereby the lease granted by the Gaon Sabha concerned in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, approached the revisional authority i.e. the Collector. The Collector maintained the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the lease and affirmed the finding that the petitioner since does not belong to scheduled caste/scheduled tribes shall be lower in preference as compared to persons belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribes persons in the Gaon Sabha concerned. This finding has not been challenged and possibly cannot be challenged in view of concurrent findings recorded by the authorities. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the explanation of the term "any person aggrieved" as contemplated under Section 198 (4) of the Act must be read in the context that an ordinary resident of the Gaon Sabha could not have raised the objection regarding grant of lease in favour of the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha concerned.

I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I do not agree with the same as it is against the settled law that any person resident of Gaon Sabha can be termed as person aggrieved qua property of Gaon Sabha. In this view of the matter I do not find any force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 1.11.2006.

mhu - 59433/06


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.