Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Ram Charan vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 19 September, 1978
"3.The aforesaid single judge authority of Babu Ram stands impliedly overruled by Full Bench authority of Ram Charan V. State of U.P., AIR 1979 All. 114 decided on 19.9.1978. Taking note of the aforesaid Explanation in paragraphs 33 to 39 of the aforesaid Full Bench authority it has been held that decision of consolidation Courts given after 24.1.1971 in respect of declaration of right in any manner are to be ignored. First sentence of para 34 of the aforesaid Full Bench authority is quoted below :
Rambir Singh Son Of Sri Nathu Singh vs Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division And ... on 3 January, 2008
The said observations made by the Full Bench Authority quoted in paragraph 3 of the judgement of this court in Rambir Singh (supra) is as follows:-
Anil Kumar Gupta, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 28 July, 1995
The connected writ petition no. 42570 of 1999 has been filed by Anil Kumar son of Ram Kishun challenging the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31.3.1995 and the order of the appellate authority dated 25.9.1999 passed in appeal no. 59/80/P/ 1995(Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others). The petitioner Anil Kumar son of Ram Kishun has challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31.3.1995 on issue no. 3 only which is also under challenge by the petitioner tenure holder in the leading writ petition No. 45710 of 1999.As the controversy involved in both the writ petition is same and relate to the same subject matter, the writ petitions are being decided together by this common judgement.
Section 30 in The U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Om Prakash Gupta vs Additional Prescribed ... on 13 August, 2007
The reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgement of this court in Om Prakash Agarwal Vs. Additional District Judge reported in 1981 A.W.C 775 in support of his arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the case of Thakur Ji Laxmi Narayan Ji Mandir which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide impugned order dated 31.3.1995 while deciding the issue no. 4, this court in writ petition No. 45266 of 1999 has held that the name of the temple was recorded by the order of Consolidation Authority dated 7.3.1975 which is prior to 10.10. 1975. Thus, the sale deed issued in favour of temple admittedly being prior to 10.10.1975 was not hit by Section 5(8) of the Act, which was added by Act no. 20 of 1976 with effect from 10.10.1975. There is no material to show that Badri Narayan had inherited property and was in possession over the land in dispute. Thus the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31.3.1995 (deciding issue no. 4) against the petitioner-tenure holder and the appellate order dated 25.9.1999 were held illegal and against the evidence on record. Placing reliance upon these two judgements learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the above judgements of this court and, therefore, both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
State Of Bihar vs Badri Narayan Mahto on 28 January, 2009
The controversy in the connected writ petitions relate to the proceedings initiated against Badri Narayan son of Durga Prasad, petitioner in writ petition no. 45110 of 1999 under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act).The proceedings were initiated against the petitioner with issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act dated 19.4.1974. Petitioner filed objection and case no. 114 (State Vs. Badri Narayan) was proceeded against him. The Prescribed Authority by judgement and order dated 4.8.1975 declared the land of the petitioner as surplus land to the extent of an area of 9.80 acres in the form of irrigated land. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 11.9.1975 and the case was remanded to the then Prescribed Authority. In the meantime, one Mathura Prasad had intervened in the matter. His request was turned down, the matter travelled upto this court and was remanded to the Prescribed Authority vide judgement and order dated 24.4.1978 passed by this court for deciding the same afresh after considering the contention of the aforesaid intervener, Mathura Prasad. After considering the claim of Mathura Prasad, the Prescribed Authority by judgement and order dated 27.7.1981 declared 7.74 acres of the land of the petitioner as surplus.
1