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


Jageshwar v. Kunware And Others - WRIT - B No. 10552 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 6711 (1 December 2005)


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).


Heard Sri M.W. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent nos. 1 to 5.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.1999 passed by respondent no.7 and the revisional order dated 15.12.1999 of the Additional Commissioner passed in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

The proceedings started on a report dated 3.7.19996 submitted by Tehsildar to the effect that the petitioner in collusion with the Lekpal has got his name falsely recorded over plot no. 1052 and the said entry is liable to be expunged.

The report of the Tehsildar clearly mentioned that the petitioner was given patta of plot no. 1055 area 1-9-0 only. But he in collusion with Lekpal got his name recorded over plot no. 1052 area 0-5-0 as well. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner was only given patta of an area 1-9-0 of plot no. 1055 and his name has wrongly and fraudulently been recorded over plot no. 1052 in connivance with the Lekpal.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the repot of Tehsildar which formed the basis of orders of the court below was ex-parte and was forwarded without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner.

From a perusal of the impugned order, it becomes clear that he was served with a notice of the proceedings and had also filed objection. Thus the petitioner had ample opportunity to contest the report of the Tehsildar and to prove it wrong before the authorities which he failed to do. Even before this court, the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence as to how his name came to be recorded over plot no. 1052 when he was given patta only of plot no. 1055 area 1-9-0.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no scope for interference by this court in the findings recorded by the two courts below.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.


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.