Allahabad Court May 1954 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jwala Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All638; (1954)IILLJ698All
Malik, C.J.1. These writ petitions have no force. They have been filed by three Patwaris who had tendered their resignations which were accepted by the Government, and they now claim that they should have been allowed to continue in service. Learned counsel state that the facts of the three cases are similar and the same point arises in all the three. We will, therefore, give the facts of one case and this judgment will govern the other two cases.2. In Miscellaneous Writ Case No. 389 of 1953 Jwala Prasad was appointed Patwari of Akoraha circle, district Banaras in the year 1942. Towards the end of the year 1952 and beginning of 1953 there was a certain amount of agitation among the Patwaris as they considered that their terms and conditions of service were not satisfactory. On 2-2-1953 Jwala Prasad sent a letter of resignation, which is annexure A to his affidavit. The firstparagraph of this letter ends with the words 'Atah apne pad se tyag patra de deta hun', which means 'I am, theref...
Lala Raj Kishore and ors. Vs. District Board of Seharanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All675
ORDERM.L. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by eight persons, who own machine, for hulling rice, or a flour mill, or an oil crusher or a sugar-cane crusher. Respondent No. 1 is the District Board of Shaharanpur and respondent No. 2 to 5 are lessees of the right of the respondent No. 1 to collect licence fee from the petitioners and others.2. On 17-1-1948 the District Board of Shaharanpur (respondent No. 1) approved certain draft bye-laws by means of a resolution and directed their publication in papers. They were published in the Hindi Weekly called 'Hindu', and in the English Weekly called the 'Peoples General of Shaharanpur'. After the publication, the matter came up before the Board on 11-11-1948 when the Board finally approved the bye-laws and resolved that they should be submitted to the Commissioner for his sanction. The Commissioner sanctioned them and the bye-laws were published in the U. P. Gazette dated 28-5-1949, when they came into opera...
Tej Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. State Through Data Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All655
V. Bhargava, J.The petitioners, Tej Bahadur Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh and Raj Narain Singh, were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506, Penal Code, by Opposite Party No. 3, the Panchayati Adalat of Sarai Haidar Shah, pergana Amethi, district Sultanpur, on a complaint made before the Panchayati Adalat by Data Din Dhobi opposite party No. 1 and sentenced to fines of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 10/- each for the two offences respectively. After the conviction by the Panchayati Adalat, the petitioners moved a revision before opposite party No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Amethi but that revision was dismissed. The petitioners, consequently, moved this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of their conviction.2. The first point, that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the provisions relating to trial of criminal cases by a Panchayati Adalat under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, are ultra vires of the legis...
Zaheer and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All653
Malik, C.J.1. The applicants were convicted of offences under Sections 447 and 323, Penal Code, by the Panchayati Adalat, Village Para, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur, and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- and Rs. 5/- under the two sections respectively. This order is dated 29-10-1952. The applicants filed a revision in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Ghazipur, which was dismissed by him on 6-7-1953. This writ petition has been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution and the only point raised is that Chapter VI of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (XXVI of 1947) is 'ultra vires' being in conflict with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The offences mentioned in Section 52 of the Act are exclusively triable by Panchayati Adalats. Section 54 provides for penalties which the Panchayati Adalat can impose. Section 55 bars the cognizance of any case or suit which is cognizable under the Act by a Panchayati Adalat unless an order has been pas...
Raghubir Vs. Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All660
Malik, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed on behalf of one Raghubir against the order of a learned single Judge dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Raghubir filed a suit for possession of a number of plots in the court of an Assistant Collector. The suit was dismissed. He filed Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1948 before the Additional Commissioner of Meerut. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The other side then filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. On 29-10-1951, Mr. Ram Nagina Singh, one of the Members of the Board, heard the arguments of he parties and wrote out his judgment which he sent to another Member of the Board. Mr. J. O. N. Shukla for concurrence. Mr. Shukla on 3rd of November, 1951, without hearing the parties concurred with the opinion of Mr. Ram Nagina Singh, as a result of which the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court restored.Raghubir then filed a writ petition In this Court (Writ No. 391 of 1952). This came...
Radha Raman Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All700
ORDERChaturvedi, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner, Raja Radha Raman, was the owner of two villages, Pakaria Naugawan and Mindia Panai Urf Songarhi, pargana and Tahsil Pilibhit, before the vesting order passed by the State Government. But as portions of these two villages lie within the limits of the Municipal Board of Pilibhit, those portions still continue in the ownership of the petitioner. The plots which are the subject-matter of dispute in the present petition, lie in the portion of village Pakaria Naugawan, which is still in the ownership of the petitioner and others. In September 1943, a co-operative society was formed by a number of persons and this society is known as the co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Pilibhit. In the beginning the membership was open to all persons of good character, sound mind and above the age of 18 years, residing or carrying on any trade, business or profession in Pilibhit, and who are not members of an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›