Ram Dulare and Others Vs. State of U.P and Others

Ram Dulare and Others vs State of U.P and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided May 04, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/476852

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/476852
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: I.M. Quddusi, J.
Decided On: May 04, 2001
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1270 (M/s) of 2001
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

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

- - It appearsto be commercial one, while theallotment was made for the purposeof the construction of residence asthe petitioners are poor persons. They are poor and needypersons. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if once allotment was made in favour of the petitioners and thereafter it was c...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 122C(6)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Dulare and Others

Advocate Karunakar Srivastava and ;Vishnu Srivastava, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 122C(6)
Reported In: 2001(3)AWC2115

Excerpt

- - it appearsto be commercial one, while theallotment was made for the purposeof the construction of residence asthe petitioners are poor persons. they are poor and needypersons. 3. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if once allotment was made in favour of the petitioners and thereafter it was cancelled, then it is the duty of the land management committee as well as the s.m. quddusi, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned standing counsel.2. this writ petition has beenfiled against the order dated17.3.2001 passed by the additionalcollector in case no. 2/5/26/26/32under section 122 c (6) of theu.p.z.a. and l.r. act. by means ofwhich the allotment of the land tnquestion had been cancelled whichwas made in favour of the petitionersand the allotted land of thepetitioners is on road side. it appearsto be commercial one, while theallotment was made for the purposeof the construction of residence asthe petitioners are poor persons. thepetitioner nos. 1 and 2 belong toscheduled castes and petitioner nos.3 and 4 belong to other backwardclass. they are poor and needypersons. 3. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if once allotment was made in favour of the petitioners and thereafter it was cancelled, then it is the duty of the land management committee as well as the s.d.o./assistant collector to provide an alternative land to the petitioners.4. in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court has come to the conclusion that the order dated 17.3.2001 passed by the additional collector. balrampur, is liable to be upheld subject to the condition that the petitioners be allotted alternative land in village pjpra ram, pargana and tehsil-utraula, district-balrampur by the land management committee and the s.d.o. concerned.5. therefore, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the s.d.o., collector and land management committee to allot alternative land to the petitioners in village in question within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. the s.d.o., utraula, district balrampur and the collector. balrampur shall ensure the compliance of this order.6. the writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

Full Judgment

M. Quddusi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned standing counsel.

2. This writ petition has beenfiled against the order dated17.3.2001 passed by the AdditionalCollector in Case No. 2/5/26/26/32under Section 122 C (6) of theU.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. by means ofwhich the allotment of the land tnquestion had been cancelled whichwas made in favour of the petitionersand the allotted land of thepetitioners is on road side. It appearsto be commercial one, while theallotment was made for the purposeof the construction of residence asthe petitioners are poor persons. Thepetitioner Nos. 1 and 2 belong toScheduled Castes and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 belong to Other BackwardClass. They are poor and needypersons.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if once allotment was made in favour of the petitioners and thereafter it was cancelled, then it is the duty of the Land Management Committee as well as the S.D.O./Assistant Collector to provide an alternative land to the petitioners.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has come to the conclusion that the order dated 17.3.2001 passed by the Additional Collector. Balrampur, is liable to be upheld subject to the condition that the petitioners be allotted alternative land in village PJpra Ram, Pargana and tehsil-Utraula, district-Balrampur by the Land Management Committee and the S.D.O. concerned.

5. Therefore, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the S.D.O., Collector and Land Management Committee to allot alternative land to the petitioners in village in question within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The S.D.O., Utraula, district Balrampur and the Collector. Balrampur shall ensure the compliance of this order.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties Ram Dulare and Others vs State of U.P and Others Same Subject Constitution Same Judge I.M. Quddusi, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ...

Constitution