Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOMAI RAM versus D.M. AZAMGARH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Somai Ram v. D.M. Azamgarh & Others - WRIT - C No. 61049 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18902 (8 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61049 of 2006

Sonai Ram vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition arises out of proceeding under Section 34/40 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under :

Due to default in repayment of the amount of loan, the land belonging to the petitioner was put to auction in a recovery proceeding initiated by the bank and was auctioned in favour of respondent no.5. Auction was duly approved on 6/7-1-1993. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Rule 285(i) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R Rules before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The said proceedings, as stated by the peititoner, are still pending though 13 years have passed. Thereafter, respondent no.5 moved an application under Section 34/40 of the Land Revenue Act for mutation of his name over the land in dispute on the basis of the auction made in his favour. The said application of respondent no.5 was dismissed in default on 14.5.2004.

On the application moved by respondent no.5 the order was recalled and the proceedings were revived.

Aggrieved by the revival of the proceedings the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer to quash entire proceedings initiated by respondent no.5 under Section 34/40 of the Land Revenue Act pending before respondent no.4. The main ground is that during the pendency of the proceedings under Rule 285(i) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R Rules, the name of respondent no.5 cannot be mutated on the basis of the auction proceedings.

Be that as it may, the objection in this regard filed by the petitioner is still pending adjudication before respondent no.4. There is no reason to doubt that the said objection shall be decided in accordance with law. There is hardly any reason to interfere in the matter by this court and quash the proceedings at this stage particularly, the objection in this regard filed by the petitioner is still pending adjudication.

In view of the above, there is no scope for interference in the matter by this court.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

Dt.8.11.2006

Nd.


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.