Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNDAN AND ORS versus ADDL. COLLECTOR AND ORS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kundan And Ors v. Addl. Collector And Ors - WRIT - C No. 43029 of 1998 [2006] RD-AH 1987 (25 January 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.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PEIITION NO.43029 OF 1998

Kundan and others.                              ...Petitioners

Versus

Additional Collector & others.             ...Respondents

----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the orders dated 19.6.98 and 13.10.98 passed by the respondent No.1&2 respectively.  

The facts of the case are that an abadi patta was granted to the petitioners in the year 1986.

The respondents No.3&4 filed an application for cancellation of the abadi patta under 155P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules saying that the petitioners were not persons eligible for grant of any land under the Rules because they were all persons who had wrongly been given land on account of their close relationship with the then Pradhan .  Two of the petitioners were sons of the ex- Pradhan, while one petitioner was nephew of the Pradhan.  The objection raised by respondent No.3 & 4 was that the procedure is to be filed under the Rules 115 L and 115P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 had not been filed.  

The matter came-up for examination before the Collector who has recorded a clear finding of fact that the petitioners were not persons who were indigent or landless and in fact has recorded clearly that all the persons were having more than 3 ½ acres of land each.  The Collector has also recorded in his order that procedure to be filed under Section 122 C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Section 155 C & D was not followed in the present case and, therefore, cancelled the patta given in favour of the petitioners.  The Divisional authority confirmed the order of the Collector by his order-dated 13.10.98 on the ground that revision does not lie under Section 115 P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, 1952.

I hereby quote Rule 115 P5:

"5. The order of the Collector under the proceeding sub- rule shall be  final.".

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the patta made in favour of the petitioners were legal and proper and has not challenged the finding of facts recorded by the Collector in his order dated 19th June, 1998.  

Learned Standing Counsel has argued that in view of the findings of fact recorded, the petitioner does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  To do so, would only be an exercise to perpetuate  further  the illegality and as such it was submitted is not the purpose of  Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  

Learned Standing Counsel has also argued that orders of the Collector being final under Rule 115 P of the Rules of 1952, the revision filed by the petitioner was also misconceived.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his allotment was made under the provisions of Section 122 P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore, revision may be maintainable.  Be that as it may, the impugned order was the order passed under Rule 115 P, which is final.  

The submissions made by learned counsel for the State has force and are accepted.  The petitioners indeed were not persons who were indigent or who could not have been granted land as poor and indigent persons because they were already holding more than 3 ½ acres. Relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted because of the finding of fact concluded against the petitioner by the order of the Collector dated 19th June, 1998.  

In view of the above, I hold that the order of the Collector dated 19th of June, 1998 and the subsequent revisional order dated 13.10.98 are correct and both are hereby confirmed.  

The writ petition is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 25.1.06

L.F.

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PEIITION NO.43029 OF 1998

Kundan and others.                              ...Petitioners

Versus

Additional Collector & others.             ...Respondents

----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the orders dated 19.6.98 and 13.10.98 passed by the respondent No.1&2 respectively.  

The facts of the case are that an abadi patta was granted to the petitioners in the year 1986.

The respondents No.3&4 filed an application for cancellation of the abadi patta under 155P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules saying that the petitioners were not persons eligible for grant of any land under the Rules because they were all persons who had wrongly been given land on account of their close relationship with the then Pradhan .  Two of the petitioners were sons of the ex- Pradhan, while one petitioner was nephew of the Pradhan.  The objection raised by respondent No.3 & 4 was that the procedure is to be filed under the Rules 115 L and 115P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 had not been filed.  

The matter came-up for examination before the Collector who has recorded a clear finding of fact that the petitioners were not persons who were indigent or landless and in fact has recorded clearly that all the persons were having more than 3 ½ acres of land each.  The Collector has also recorded in his order that procedure to be filed under Section 122 C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Section 155 C & D was not followed in the present case and, therefore, cancelled the patta given in favour of the petitioners.  The Divisional authority confirmed the order of the Collector by his order-dated 13.10.98 on the ground that revision does not lie under Section 115 P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, 1952.

I hereby quote Rule 115 P5:

"5. The order of the Collector under the proceeding sub- rule shall be  final.".

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the patta made in favour of the petitioners were legal and proper and has not challenged the finding of facts recorded by the Collector in his order dated 19th June, 1998.  

Learned Standing Counsel has argued that in view of the findings of fact recorded, the petitioner does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  To do so, would only be an exercise to perpetuate  further  the illegality and as such it was submitted is not the purpose of  Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  

Learned Standing Counsel has also argued that orders of the Collector being final under Rule 115 P of the Rules of 1952, the revision filed by the petitioner was also misconceived.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his allotment was made under the provisions of Section 122 P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore, revision may be maintainable.  Be that as it may, the impugned order was the order passed under Rule 115 P, which is final.  

The submissions made by learned counsel for the State has force and are accepted.  The petitioners indeed were not persons who were indigent or who could not have been granted land as poor and indigent persons because they were already holding more than 3 ½ acres. Relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted because of the finding of fact concluded against the petitioner by the order of the Collector dated 19th June, 1998.  

In view of the above, I hold that the order of the Collector dated 19th of June, 1998 and the subsequent revisional order dated 13.10.98 are correct and both are hereby confirmed.  

The writ petition is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 25.1.06

L.F.

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PEIITION NO.43029 OF 1998

Kundan and others.                              ...Petitioners

Versus

Additional Collector & others.             ...Respondents

----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the orders dated 19.6.98 and 13.10.98 passed by the respondent No.1&2 respectively.  

The facts of the case are that an abadi patta was granted to the petitioners in the year 1986.

The respondents No.3&4 filed an application for cancellation of the abadi patta under 155P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules saying that the petitioners were not persons eligible for grant of any land under the Rules because they were all persons who had wrongly been given land on account of their close relationship with the then Pradhan .  Two of the petitioners were sons of the ex- Pradhan, while one petitioner was nephew of the Pradhan.  The objection raised by respondent No.3 & 4 was that the procedure is to be filed under the Rules 115 L and 115P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 had not been filed.  

The matter came-up for examination before the Collector who has recorded a clear finding of fact that the petitioners were not persons who were indigent or landless and in fact has recorded clearly that all the persons were having more than 3 ½ acres of land each.  The Collector has also recorded in his order that procedure to be filed under Section 122 C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Section 155 C & D was not followed in the present case and, therefore, cancelled the patta given in favour of the petitioners.  The Divisional authority confirmed the order of the Collector by his order-dated 13.10.98 on the ground that revision does not lie under Section 115 P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, 1952.

I hereby quote Rule 115 P5:

"5. The order of the Collector under the proceeding sub- rule shall be  final.".

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the patta made in favour of the petitioners were legal and proper and has not challenged the finding of facts recorded by the Collector in his order dated 19th June, 1998.  

Learned Standing Counsel has argued that in view of the findings of fact recorded, the petitioner does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  To do so, would only be an exercise to perpetuate  further  the illegality and as such it was submitted is not the purpose of  Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  

Learned Standing Counsel has also argued that orders of the Collector being final under Rule 115 P of the Rules of 1952, the revision filed by the petitioner was also misconceived.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his allotment was made under the provisions of Section 122 P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore, revision may be maintainable.  Be that as it may, the impugned order was the order passed under Rule 115 P, which is final.  

The submissions made by learned counsel for the State has force and are accepted.  The petitioners indeed were not persons who were indigent or who could not have been granted land as poor and indigent persons because they were already holding more than 3 ½ acres. Relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted because of the finding of fact concluded against the petitioner by the order of the Collector dated 19th June, 1998.  

In view of the above, I hold that the order of the Collector dated 19th of June, 1998 and the subsequent revisional order dated 13.10.98 are correct and both are hereby confirmed.  

The writ petition is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 25.1.06

L.F.

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PEIITION NO.43029 OF 1998

Kundan and others.                              ...Petitioners

Versus

Additional Collector & others.             ...Respondents

----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the orders dated 19.6.98 and 13.10.98 passed by the respondent No.1&2 respectively.  

The facts of the case are that an abadi patta was granted to the petitioners in the year 1986.

The respondents No.3&4 filed an application for cancellation of the abadi patta under 155P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules saying that the petitioners were not persons eligible for grant of any land under the Rules because they were all persons who had wrongly been given land on account of their close relationship with the then Pradhan .  Two of the petitioners were sons of the ex- Pradhan, while one petitioner was nephew of the Pradhan.  The objection raised by respondent No.3 & 4 was that the procedure is to be filed under the Rules 115 L and 115P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 had not been filed.  

The matter came-up for examination before the Collector who has recorded a clear finding of fact that the petitioners were not persons who were indigent or landless and in fact has recorded clearly that all the persons were having more than 3 ½ acres of land each.  The Collector has also recorded in his order that procedure to be filed under Section 122 C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Section 155 C & D was not followed in the present case and, therefore, cancelled the patta given in favour of the petitioners.  The Divisional authority confirmed the order of the Collector by his order-dated 13.10.98 on the ground that revision does not lie under Section 115 P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, 1952.

I hereby quote Rule 115 P5:

"5. The order of the Collector under the proceeding sub- rule shall be  final.".

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the patta made in favour of the petitioners were legal and proper and has not challenged the finding of facts recorded by the Collector in his order dated 19th June, 1998.  

Learned Standing Counsel has argued that in view of the findings of fact recorded, the petitioner does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  To do so, would only be an exercise to perpetuate  further  the illegality and as such it was submitted is not the purpose of  Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  

Learned Standing Counsel has also argued that orders of the Collector being final under Rule 115 P of the Rules of 1952, the revision filed by the petitioner was also misconceived.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his allotment was made under the provisions of Section 122 P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore, revision may be maintainable.  Be that as it may, the impugned order was the order passed under Rule 115 P, which is final.  

The submissions made by learned counsel for the State has force and are accepted.  The petitioners indeed were not persons who were indigent or who could not have been granted land as poor and indigent persons because they were already holding more than 3 ½ acres. Relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted because of the finding of fact concluded against the petitioner by the order of the Collector dated 19th June, 1998.  

In view of the above, I hold that the order of the Collector dated 19th of June, 1998 and the subsequent revisional order dated 13.10.98 are correct and both are hereby confirmed.  

The writ petition is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 25.1.06

L.F.

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PEIITION NO.43029 OF 1998

Kundan and others.                              ...Petitioners

Versus

Additional Collector & others.             ...Respondents

----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the orders dated 19.6.98 and 13.10.98 passed by the respondent No.1&2 respectively.  

The facts of the case are that an abadi patta was granted to the petitioners in the year 1986.

The respondents No.3&4 filed an application for cancellation of the abadi patta under 155P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules saying that the petitioners were not persons eligible for grant of any land under the Rules because they were all persons who had wrongly been given land on account of their close relationship with the then Pradhan .  Two of the petitioners were sons of the ex- Pradhan, while one petitioner was nephew of the Pradhan.  The objection raised by respondent No.3 & 4 was that the procedure is to be filed under the Rules 115 L and 115P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 had not been filed.  

The matter came-up for examination before the Collector who has recorded a clear finding of fact that the petitioners were not persons who were indigent or landless and in fact has recorded clearly that all the persons were having more than 3 ½ acres of land each.  The Collector has also recorded in his order that procedure to be filed under Section 122 C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Section 155 C & D was not followed in the present case and, therefore, cancelled the patta given in favour of the petitioners.  The Divisional authority confirmed the order of the Collector by his order-dated 13.10.98 on the ground that revision does not lie under Section 115 P of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, 1952.

I hereby quote Rule 115 P5:

"5. The order of the Collector under the proceeding sub- rule shall be  final.".

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the patta made in favour of the petitioners were legal and proper and has not challenged the finding of facts recorded by the Collector in his order dated 19th June, 1998.  

Learned Standing Counsel has argued that in view of the findings of fact recorded, the petitioner does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  To do so, would only be an exercise to perpetuate  further  the illegality and as such it was submitted is not the purpose of  Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  

Learned Standing Counsel has also argued that orders of the Collector being final under Rule 115 P of the Rules of 1952, the revision filed by the petitioner was also misconceived.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his allotment was made under the provisions of Section 122 P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore, revision may be maintainable.  Be that as it may, the impugned order was the order passed under Rule 115 P, which is final.  

The submissions made by learned counsel for the State has force and are accepted.  The petitioners indeed were not persons who were indigent or who could not have been granted land as poor and indigent persons because they were already holding more than 3 ½ acres. Relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted because of the finding of fact concluded against the petitioner by the order of the Collector dated 19th June, 1998.  

In view of the above, I hold that the order of the Collector dated 19th of June, 1998 and the subsequent revisional order dated 13.10.98 are correct and both are hereby confirmed.  

The writ petition is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 25.1.06

L.F.


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.