Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

State of U.P. Vs. Triloki NaraIn Chadda and Another

State of U.P. vs Triloki NaraIn Chadda and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 04, 1995
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/456696

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 14330 of 1982
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Property - interpretation - Section 2(q) (ii) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 - definition of vacant land given under Section 2(q) (ii) does not include land attached to building-Petition Dismissed. -

Key legal issue
Property
Acts & sections
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 - Sections 2

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of U.P.

Advocate S.V. Goswami, Adv.

Respondent

Triloki NaraIn Chadda and Another

Advocate Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 - Sections 2
Reported In
AIR1995All410

Excerpt

property - interpretation - section 2(q) (ii) of urban land (ceiling and regulations) act, 1976 - definition of vacant land given under section 2(q) (ii) does not include land attached to building-petition dismissed. - order1. this writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15-7-1982. i have heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and have perused the record. i find no infirmity in the impugned order. it has been observed in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that there are six residential units for each of which the respondent no. 1, the appellant is entitled to 1000 square meters appurtenant land under the u.p. urban land (geling and regulations) act, hereinafter referred to as the act. under section 2(q)(ii) of the act land appurtenant to a building is not included within the definition of vacant land. hence the appellate court has rightly held that for each residential building the respondent no. i will be entitled to 1000 square meters of appurtenant land. there is no infirmity in the impugned order. the petition is accordingly dismissed. no order as to costs.2. petition dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15-7-1982. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and have perused the record. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. It has been observed in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that there are six residential units for each of which the respondent No. 1, the appellant is entitled to 1000 square meters appurtenant land under the U.P. Urban Land (Geling and Regulations) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Under Section 2(q)(ii) of the Act land appurtenant to a building is not included within the definition of vacant land. Hence the appellate Court has rightly held that for each residential building the respondent No. I will be entitled to 1000 square meters of appurtenant land. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

2. Petition dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial