Allahabad Court May 2001 Judgments
Smt. Khairunnisha Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1863
S.K. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation dated 19.4.2001, contained as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The Deputy Director, Consolidation by the judgment impugned in this writ petition has allowed the restoration application filed by the opposite parties and directed that after disposal of the appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, if it is required fresh reference be prepared and be sent after giving notice and opportunity to the parties to the proceedings.2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 3.4.1996. Plot No. 48 was divided as Plot Nos. 48A and 48B, and it is on the basis of the consent of the parties, reference was prepared by the Consolidation Officer. It has been argued by the learned counsel that before the Consolidation Officer when the reference was prepared andforwarded, both the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge, Bijnor and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1874
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The opposite party No. 3 filed an application for release under Section 21 (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, being P.A. Case No. 7 of 1998 before the prescribed authority. Bijnor. The premises in dispute is a shop In Sadar Bazar, Bijnor. The application for release was allowed by the prescribed authority. Bijnor on 18.1.2001, by judgment. Annexure-19 to the petition. Against that order, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 3 of 2001. The appeal has also been dismissed on 23.3.2001, by judgment, Annexure-20 to the petition. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that both the above orders be quashed and the application for release be dismissed.2. I have heard Sri M.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sankatha Rai and Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.3. It is contended that the need alleged is for set...
Tag this Judgment!Khokha Rai Vs. Rajesh Bahadur Johari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1870
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 52 of 1992 for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises on the ground, namely, (i) that he has made default in the payment of rent, (ii) that he has made material alterations in the disputed accommodation, and (iii) that he has put the tenanted accommodation to use Inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let out.2. The petitioner defendant in the suit moved an application for issue of commission for local inspection of the premises regarding ground Nos. 2 and 3 taken for the ejectment. The application isAnnexure-3 to the petition dated 17.1.2000. That application was rejected by J.S.C.C., Allahabad by order dated 2.2.2000, Annexure-4 to the petition. Against that order, the petitioner preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 359 of 2000 which has been dismissed on 7.12.2000 by XIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 22...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Thard and Others Vs. Hirdesh Khandelwal and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1868
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The premises in dispute is house No. 47/7-A. Maniram Bagia, Kanpur Nagar, which is residential. It was declared vacant by the R.C. & E.O. by order, dated 31.1.2001. Annexure-18 to the petition. Thereafter an application for release was moved by the respondents, who are landlords. The premises has been released in their favour by order dated 23.4.2001 by R.C. & E.O., Annexure-19 to the petition. Against that order of release, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), being Revision No. 24 of 2001. The said revision has been dismissed on 15.5.2001 by judgment, Annexure-21 to the petition. Therefore, present petition has been filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned senior advocate for the petitioners and Sri A. N. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.3. It has been argued by Sr...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bhajan Vs. Chief Revenue Officer/Prescribed Authority, Mirzapur an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1924
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 7.3.2001 and the orders passed by respondent No. 1 dated 22.5.1986 and 20.11.1987.2. The facts in brief are that anotice was issued under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Celling of Land Holding Act (hereby referred to as the Act) by which an area of 20-0-4 was proposed as surplus. The said notice was confirmed by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 15.12.1976 and the area 20-0-4 was declared as surplus. Against that judgment, the tenure holders filed restoration and thereafter appeal, but both were dismissed. Ultimately, by the judgment of this Court dated 23.11.1984, the matter was remanded back for reconsideration.3. It appears that in the meantime on 12.3.1979, the land as was declared surplus was allotted to the petitioner who claims to have come in possession over that land.4. After remand of the matter when it was taken up by t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.D. Hajela Vs. Chancellor/Governor and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1879; (2001)2UPLBEC1880
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tripathi for the Chancellor, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and also Dr. R. G. Padia learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant pensionary benefit to the petitioner.3. The petitioner was appointed as permanent Lecturer in the Department, of Economics in. Allahabad University on 11.8.1947 and continued there till 24.11.1971, i.e., for about 25 years and thereafter he joined Punjabi University at Patiala. Thereafter petitioner was appointed Vice-Chancellor of Allahabad University and Sagar University and also served in various Institutions of National importance, viz., Indian Council for Social Science Research, U.G.C.. H.P.A. and J.A.M.R. etc. upto November, 1993.4. The State Government Issued a G.O. dated 24.12.1983 copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition granting pensionary benefits to University teachers of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Balbhadra Pandey Vs. Vice Chancellor, Gorakhpur University and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1921; (2001)3UPLBEC2077
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.1.1996 Annexure-12 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to open the sealed envelop and recommendation of the Selection Committee held on 28.1.1996 in respect of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 until and unless the case of the petitioner is also considered for personal promotion on the post of Professor in Education in Gorakhpur University. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to call for a meeting of the Selection Committee for considering the petitioner for personal promotion as professor.2. We have heard learnedcounsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is M.A., Ph.D. and D.Lit. The petitioner was originally appointed as lecturer in Education on 12.7.1969 after approval of the Vice Chancellor of Gorakhpur University in Baba Raghav Das Degree College, Deoria affiliated to Gorakhpur University. The petitioner worked on that post from 12.7...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1972; [2001(90)FLR473]; (2001)2UPLBEC1855
S.R. Singh, J.1. The question that begs consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, who suffered impairment due to locomotor disability to the extent of 20%, is entitled as 'physically handicapped' candidate, to get the benefit of the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act. 1993 as it stands amended by the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) (Amendment) Act. 4 of 1997?2. Background leading to the filing of the present petition draped in brevity is that the petitioner, to begin with, applied for appointment to the post of Asstt. Prosecuting Officer pursuant to the notification issued by the U. P. Public Services Commission vide the advertisement issued on 29.12.1997. The petitioner belongs to other backward class (O.B.C.) category and also suffers from physical impairment and as such, he claimed to be extended the b...
Tag this Judgment!Mumtaz Begun Vs. District Judge and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1996
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The premises in dispute is shop No. 63/2 situated in Mohalla Ganeshganj, district Jalaun, The petitioner is landlady of the same. She moved an application against respondent No. 2 for release of the disputed shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The application for release is Annexure-1 to the petition, in which she alleged that she had eight sonsand three daughters. That her son Noor Mohd. has taken diploma in technical education. That he could not find any suitable service and, therefore, want to establish himself in the disputed shop by starting business connected with motor mechanism. It is contended that there is no other place for him to start the business and, therefore, he is unsettled in life.2. Learned prescribed authority allowed the application for release on 6.8.1984 by judgment, Annexure-2 to the petition. Against that order, the respondent No. 2 preferred Appeal No. 20 of 1994, under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Pandey Vs. Chief Secretary U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR788]; 2001LabIC3975; (2001)2UPLBEC1676
R.B. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition No. 7133 of 2001 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the ex parte Inquiry report and for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect or not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of the ex parte inquiry report against him. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to get the Inquiry conducted, if any, against the petitioner through any competent authority of any department other than the present one which is under the ministry of Sri Markandey Chand, the Minister for Rural Engineering Services and Minor Irrigation Department Government of U. P. The petitioner has made initially five respondents, e.g., (i) The Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh. (ii) Sri Markandey Chand. Minister for Rural Engineering Services and Minor Irrigation Department. (iii) The Secretary. Minor Irrigation Department and Rural Engineering Services, (iv) Sri AJai Kuma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »