Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar And Company ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 March, 1980
Relying upon the case of Ram Kumar versus State of U.P. reported in MANU/UP/3147/2016, he further submits as under:
Kanhai (Now Deceased) & Others vs The State Of U.P. & Others on 23 August, 2010
Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent Nos. 4 to 150 placing reliance upon the case of Kanhai (now deceased) and others versus State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44338 of 2006, decided on 2.3.2012 submits that A person who seeks to question the allotment has to show that he had preferential right for the said allotment. Seeking cancellation of allotment order without showing preference cannot be questioned except on the intervention of the Gaon Sabha. Petitioner claims that the land has been wrongly allotted to the respondents without claiming that they have right to seek allotment of the said land under the Act. Rules with regard to locus-standi is that judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legal protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority. Aggrieved person must show that he had suffered a legal grievance against whom a decision which has been pronounced which has wrongfully refused him of something, which he had a right to demand. It is within this precincts that the aggrieved person can seek redressal of his grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Awadhesh Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 November, 2019
Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2004 (1) JCLR 25 (All.), decision in Writ-C No. 36068 of 2004, decision in Writ Petition No. 44338 of 2006 (Kanhai (now deceased) and others Vs. State of U. P. and others, decided on 02.03.2012, decision in Writ-C No. 32252 of 2022 (Awadhesh Kumar versus State of U. P.) decided on 15.02.2023, decision in Misc.
Hari Shanker And Others vs State Of U.P.Thru.It'S Secy. And Others on 25 July, 2012
Single No. 27989 of 2016 (Ram Kumar Vs. State of U. P. and others) decided on 25.11.2016 as also the decision in Writ Petition No. 64061 of 2016 (Hari Shanker Kushwaha and others Vs. State of U. P. through Secretary, Revenue Department, Lucknow and others) decided on November 24, 2017 to buttress the point that the writ petitioners cannot be termed as "persons aggrieved" so as to maintain the complaint and consequently the present writ petition, having not suffered from any legal injury. It is accordingly submitted that the order of the Board of Revenue is just and proper and calls for no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition as framed deserves to be dismissed.
Brahm Singh vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 21 December, 2001
Learned counsel for the answering Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 has vehemently argued that the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar was not competent to exercise his jurisdiction u/s 198(4) and it was the Collector, Bulandshahar alone, who was competent to cancel the allotment. It is urged that in such view of the matter, the order of the Additional Collector cannot sustain. This Court is not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the contesting Respondent Nos. 4 to 150. The issue is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and Others reported in 2008 (105) RD 1, wherein it has been categorically held that powers and functions of Collector including exercise of powers u/s 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be exercised by the Additional Collector. The question no. (b) also stands decided accordingly.
Ram Jiyawan & Others vs Addl. Commissiner (Judicial) ... on 17 October, 2012
Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel controverting the arguments of Shri Somesh Khare submits that the complaint as also the instant writ petition is maintainable as in respect of the public property of Gaon Sabha any one can initiate the proceedings or challenge the order settling such land of the Gaon Sabha with private persons. Regards may be had to the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Ram Ziyawan and Others Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur and Others reported in 2014 (124) RD 219.
Mathai Lal Dube vs District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas ... on 24 August, 2000
Further in Nathai Lal Dube Vs. District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar reported in 2000 (4) AWC 2752 it has been held that a writ petition by a member of a Gaon Sabha raising allegations against the action of the Gaon Sabha in allotting land in violation of the norms can be assailed before a writ Court.
1