Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRAPAL SINGH & AOTHER versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandrapal Singh & Aother v. Board Of Revenue U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 62101 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19238 (15 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.

In view of order proposed to be passed it is not necessary to invite for any counter affidavit.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue in a Second appeal under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act against the order and decree dated 19th February 2004 and 4th March 2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

By the impugned order the Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal and set aside the orders under appeal and remanded back the matter to the trial court for preparation of fresh Qurras and directed that after obtaining objections from the parties Qurras should be finalized keeping in view the objections filed by the parties. The Additional Commissioner in its judgment, under the appeal before the Board of Revenue, has referred the case set up by both the parties but has not recorded the finding as to whether the trees in question, about which the objections were raised, were ancestral trees or they have been planted by the objector, the appellant. In absence of finding by the lower appellate court the remand order passed by the Board of Revenue, so far as it relates to remand, does not require any interference by this Court but in the interest of justice it should have been remanded to the first appellate court, Additional Commissioner, who will decide the question referred to above on the basis of evidence on the record.

With the above observations this writ petition succeeds in part and is allowed. The order of Board of Revenue is affirmed except that the case should go back to the Additional Commissioner instead of the trial court.

Dt: 15.11.2006.

mhu - 62101/06


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.