RAM BHAWAN SINGH Vs. JAGDISH
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on August 22,1990

RAM BHAWAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
JAGDISH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY VS. HINDUSTAN RAMMER [LAWS(DLH)-1994-10-31] [DISTINGUISHED]
HUSAINSAB GOUSUSAB KAREEMSAB ELLAPUR VS. KRISHNARAO SHESHAGIRIRAO SARATHI [LAWS(KAR)-2002-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
B KRISHNA MURTHY VS. B VISHNU MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-2000-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
GNANADURAI VS. SUSEELAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1994-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
CHIKKASIDDAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-7-369] [REFERRED TO]
N. SARAVANAN VS. MANUJOTHI ASHRAMAM [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
N SHRINIVASA RAO VS. SPL COURT UNDER A P LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD VS. VOLTAS LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1994-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
ACME PAPERS LIMITED VS. M P FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2010-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
B. Haleshappa VS. State of Karnataka and others [LAWS(KAR)-2002-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
AGOSTINHO FRANCISCO ANTONIO DE JESUS COREIA AFONSO VS. WILLIAM DCOSTA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-3-287] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH G. RAMNANI VS. AURELIA ANA DA PIEDADE MIRANDA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
CORONATION CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-454] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VS. AMIYA STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
FUTURE BUILDERS CO-OP SOCIETY VS. S MALLA REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-9-52] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments of the High court of Allahabad. The land in plots Nos. 6385 and 6386 measuring 5 bighas and 4 biswas had been in the possession of Ram Dayal as mortgagee under Baijnath who was the original tenant. Respondents 1 to 3 are the descendants of Ram Dayal. They made an application under S. 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 before the Consolidation Officer. They claimed tenancy rights on the basis of the deed dated 30/07/1945 and they stated that their names had been recorded in the Khatauni of 1359 Fasli; they are in cultivatory possession and have become adhivasis and subsequently sirdars. They alleged that the names of the appellants herein have been wrongly entered in the Khatauni of 1353 Fasli and that the appellants have no right or possession over the land. The respondents prayed for entering their names as sirdars and scoring off the names of the appellants.
(2.)This application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 23/07/1967. The order was reversed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision filed by the respondents. However, the writ petition filed by the respondents as C. M. W. P. No. 2726 of 1970 was allowed by the High courtthe appellate and the revisional authorities were quashed thereby maintaining the order of Consolidation Officer. Civil No. 1002 of 1976 is directed against the judgment dated 3/10/1972 of the High court.
(3.)The appellants had filed a special appeal on 30/11/1972 against the judgment dated 3/10/1972 of Single Judge of the High court in C. M. W. P. No. 2726 of 1970. However, the said Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and ultimately dismissed in view of the U. P. High courts (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeal Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 which came into force on 30/06/1972. This completes the narration of the fate of the Writ Petition No. 2726 of 1970 which finally culminated in favour of the respondents by order dated 3/10/1972.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.