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


Brij Kumar Das v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 546 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11232 (5 July 2007)


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).


'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

    It appears that in proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the land of the petitioner was declared surplus. The petitioner came to this court in Writ Petition No. 17927 of 1987 with the grievance that the surplus land be declared according to his choice. This court passed an order that if the possession of the surplus land has not been given to the allottees then the tenure holder's choice should be accommodated and instead of  portion of the bigger plot the State may accept the smaller plot, which can satisfy the surplus declared area.  In pursuance to the order of this Court the matter was considered by the prescribed authority and by order dated 27.5.1997 it is found that the possession has already been delivered to the allottees. This order was challenged by the tenure holder Smt. Asha Rani, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 17.12.1997. The Additional Commissioner also affirmed the finding that the possession of the land has been given to the allottees on 29.4.1987. The finding that the possession of the land had been delivered to the allottees recorded in the order passed by the additional commissioner is one of fact. After a lapse of about five years in the year 2002 an application for recall of the order was filed by Smt. Raj Kumari the mother of the petitioner alleging that the order dated 17.12.1997 was an ex parte one. The application for recall was rejected by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 9.2.2007. The finding is that Smt. Raj Kumari was heard before the order was passed and it was not an ex parte order and, therefore,  could not be restored. This is also a finding of fact.  Apart from the fact that the findings that possession was given to the allottees is a finding of fact the order passed in the year 1997 by the Additional Commissioner is an old one and this writ petition challenging the order after a lapse of ten years especially when the recall application was filed before the Commissioner after a lapse of five years is highly belated. The findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner are not vitiated by any error of law. Dismissed.




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.