Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEVENDRA KUMAR versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARANPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Devendra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - C No. 62032 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19180 (14 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

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 as also Sri Anuj Kumar who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.3.

The petitioner aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar, Devband dated 27th January 2006, whereby the petitioner has been declared to be unauthorized occupant of plot in dispute and is directed to be evicted from the land in dispute with imposition of damages to the tune of Rs.1,500/- plus execution charges, approached the revisional authority by means of revision. The revisional authority by its judgment dated 27th July 2006 dismissed the revision and maintained the order passed by the Tahsildar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has taken up categorical case that he is not in occupation of the land in dispute and the authorities have committed error in deciding the issue on the basis of evidence on the record without measuring the same. A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar clearly demonstrates that he has visited and inspected the plot in dispute and thereafter recorded a finding that the report of the Lekhpal is found correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that these findings are perverse or suffer from any error much less an error apparent on the face of record which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

This writ petition, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 14.11.2006.

mhu - 62032/06


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.