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


Jeet Lal v. Addl. Commissioner(Iind) Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 41471 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12646 (1 August 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).


Civil Misc. Writ No. 41471 of 2006

Jeet Lal.....Petitioner


Additional Commissioner (IInd), Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad

& Others...Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Harish Chandra,learned counsel for the petitioner.

The dispute relates to plots no. 360, 261, 262, 263, 252, 264 and 265 situate in village-Sarai Abhai Chand, Teshil-Phulpur, District- Allahabad. The said plots came to be recorded in the name of respondent no. 4 and his brother Bhure Lal on the basis of order dated 25.1.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Subsequently, an application dated 3.2.1981 was moved by the petitioner under Section 42-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to delete the name of respondent no. 4 and his brother from the land in dispute on the ground that said entries were farzi. The Consolidation Officer directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to inquire into the matter and submit a report. The Consolidation Officer acting upon the report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 4.101982 deleting the entry of respondent no. 4 and his brother from the land in dispute and directed the said land to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. It appears that the order was not given effect in the revenue record. In the year 2003, the Gaon Sabha filed a case under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act to make necessary correction in the revenue record and record the name of Gaon Sabha. Vide order dated 29.12.2003, respondent no. 2 directed to expunge the name of respondent no. 4 and his brother from the plot no. 260. The case of Gaon Sabha with regard to the rest of the plots was dismissed. Aggrieved respondent no. 3 went up in revision. The revisional Court vide order dated 26.4.2005 dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by respondent no. 2. Thereafter, the pradhan of Gaon Sabha moved an application dated 11.8.2005 to recall the order dated 26.4.2005. The said application came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.12.2005.  The petitioner, who claims to be a resident of the village, has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the revisional court and the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by respondent no. 2.

The proceedings were being contested by Gaon Sabha, the petitioner was neither a party in the said proceedings nor he had any interest in the property in dispute. Thus, at the behest of the present writ petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly 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.