DHANI RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-130
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
May 26,2017
DHANI RAM
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
AFLATOON BAHADUR ABDULRASHID NURUDDIN BAHADUR AFLATOON VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI:LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI:LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI:LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI:LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI:LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]STATE OF MYSORE VS. V K KANGAN:NARASIMHA RAM NAIK [REFERRED TO]
FT GIRDHARAN PRASAD MISSIR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUDAMA DEVI VS. COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
H D VORA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RUP DIAMONDS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND VED PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DIGAMBAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. DHOBEI SETHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. L KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAJ BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. S M KOTRAYYA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. D R LAXMI [REFERRED TO]
C PADMA VS. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF T N [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHLAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. DOLLY DAS [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE HANDLOOM AND HANDICRAFT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. JAIN SCHOOL SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
PRINTERS MYSORE LIMITED VS. M A RASHEED [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J. -
(1.)By means of the present writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.10.1995 issued by the competent authority relating to making of entries in Khatauni of the land bearing Khasra No.878/3903.55 as well as Khasra No.189/600.83 situate at village Bharwara, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow, and further issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to restore the name of the petitioner over Khasra/Khatauni and not to make any interference in his peaceful possession over the land in question.
(2.)Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was recorded land owner of the land mentioned above with transferable rights but without any notice or proceeding or opportunity of hearing, he has been deprived of the legitimate right of the land which has been declared by the competent authority as surplus ceiling land. By the impugned order, the land of the petitioner was declared as surplus land while it is version of the petitioner that notice under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) was not issued to him and he was not given any opportunity of hearing.
(3.)By filing the counter affidavit it has been submitted that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and notice under Sec. 10(5) has already been issued and served by registered A.D.
(2.)Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was recorded land owner of the land mentioned above with transferable rights but without any notice or proceeding or opportunity of hearing, he has been deprived of the legitimate right of the land which has been declared by the competent authority as surplus ceiling land. By the impugned order, the land of the petitioner was declared as surplus land while it is version of the petitioner that notice under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) was not issued to him and he was not given any opportunity of hearing.
(3.)By filing the counter affidavit it has been submitted that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and notice under Sec. 10(5) has already been issued and served by registered A.D.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.