Allahabad Court February 2004 Judgments
Mohan Nath Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1430
Bhanwar Singh, J.1.Mohan Nath has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 28.7.1976, 22.11.1988 and 19.7.1994, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (W) Chandauli, Varanasi Additional Commissioner (First), Varanasi Region, Varanasi and Board of Revenue respectively.2. The properties involved in the litigation were situated in village Hanumanpur of Varanasi district. The present petitioner Mohan Nath was defendant No. 1 in a partition suit filed by his two brothers, namely, Prabhu Nath and Vireshwar Nath. The plaint case of the said two brother-plaintiffs was that the land of plot Nos. 14/19 and 14/22 and the residential apartments were their ancestral properties and since the three brothers inherited 1/3rd share each, they were entitled to have all the properties partitioned in equal share to that extent. Resisting the plaintiffs case as pleaded in their plaint, Mohan Nath. the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Ex-constable Kishori Lal Sharma Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1434; (2004)2UPLBEC1201
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Since the order dated 27.1.2004 by which the petition was dismissed for default has been recalled, we are now proceeding to hear the case on merits.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 7.9.1993 by which the petitioner's claim petition was dismissed.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the year 1965. An inquiry was initiated against him alleging that while he was married to one Smt. Sunehara Devi he had kept another lady Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of one Mahesh Chandra with him. After an inquiry in which he was given opportunity of hearing, he was dismissed from service.4. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal which has been rejected, and hence this petition.5. The Tribunal has found that Smt. Pushpa Devi is the wife of one Mahesh Chandra and she has deserted him and is living with the petitioner. It can be reasonably inferred that...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Prakash NaraIn Katju (D) Through L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1527
Dilip Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the State of U. P. against the award of the reference court made under Section 18 of the Act.2. We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri S.N. Verma, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Sharad Malviya for the claimants-respondents.3. Briefly stated the facts are that the claimants were the recorded tenure holders of plot No. 362 measuring 18 bighas 17 biswas situated in village Chandpur Salori, pargana Chail within the municipal limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.3.1987 proposing to acquire the land for the purposes of construction of a residential colony by the Allahabad Development Authority under the Govindpur Extension Scheme. This was followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 16.4.1987. The urgency provisions were resorte...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Buddha Prakash Alias Buddhi Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1822
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed by the State Government against the impugned judgment of the IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr in L.A.R. No. 43 of 1992, dated 23.3.1992.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per bigha but the court below increased it to Rs. 6 lacs per bigha. Against that judgment this appeal has been filed in this Court.4. Learned standing counsel first urged that the respondent had accepted the compensation without protest. In this connection the finding of the court below is that the respondents had protested. This finding is on the basis of the evidence on record and in rebuttal no evidence has been adduced by the State. Moreover, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 4 SCC 67, (vide paragraph 5) that when an application for reference under Section 18 has been filed, it amounts to an implied protest ...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Ravi Das Vs. Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department and Rural En ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1248
A.K. Yog, J.1. Learned Counsels, appearing for the parties submit that all the Writ Petitions are based on similar facts giving rise to common question of law and hence all of them may be heard together and decided by a common judgment.2. Individuals, were impleaded as Respondent Nos. 4 to 24 in the Writ Petition under Court order dated 23.10.2002 on the Civil Misc. Application No. 138538 of 2002. No request made on behalf of the petitioners to serve them and instead desired these petitions to be decided finally as such.3. Learned Counsels for the parties submit that there is no dispute on facts. The sole question to be decided in the petitions is 'whether petitioners can claim for counting period of ad-hoc service, rendered on the basis of ad-hoc promotion before regularisation, while determining inter se seniority?'4. Relevant facts and dates, in the leading petition filed by Arjun Ravi Das, are :___________________________________________________________________________________Sl. N...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chutki and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1865
ORDERM. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.1. The petitioners are challenging the Notification dated 29.11.1990, issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.2. This petition is highly belated. Moreover, the notification itself shows that the land is being acquired for a public purpose, i.e., establishing a residential colony under the planned development scheme in Phaphamau, Pargana Soraon, district Allahabad. It is well-settled that this is for a public purpose and there is urgency in such matter vide W. P. No. 47391 of 2003, A.K. Goel v. State of U. P., decided on 27.2.2004.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that possession of the land in question cannot be taken without paying the compensation provided for under Section 17(3A). This submission is correct. Section 17(3A) states :'17 (3). Before taking possession of any land under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), the Collector, shall, without preju...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Sughar Singh (Retired) Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Es ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1925
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being finally decided.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the retiral benefit of the petitioner including full pension, commutation of 12 months' pension and gratuity etc. with interest. By second prayer, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to properly revise and fix the pay scale of the petitioner and to provide him super selection grade/promotional pay scale of Rs. 5,500-175-9,000 from due date.3. Facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly stated, are ; petitioner was recruited as constable in Civil Police on 23rd November, 1962, he was promoted as Head Constable in ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kiran Devi and anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1942
S.N. Srivastava, J1. By means of present petition, the petitioners have assailed the concurrent findings recorded by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation dated 17.8.1998, 24.5.2000 and 30.8.2003.2. Lakshmi Narain, Badri Narain and Jagat Narain sons of Bhawan Das were recorded tenure holders. The dispute in the instant petition pertains to the land of Lakshmi Narain who died in the year 1991. On publication of record under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, two sets of objections came to be filed-one by Sukh Dei wife of Lakshmi Narain and another by Ajay Kumar and others claiming to be sons of Lakshmi Narain. Two other objections were also filed but the same being of no seminal importance, do not deserve consideration.3. The background of necessary facts erupting into litigation as borne out from the record is that Lakshmi Narain had two wives one Sukh Dei and the other Radhika Devi. Out of union of Sukh Dei and...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Pratap Yadav Alias Mahajan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2076
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to grant to the petitioner lease of plot No. 22AA Civil Station, Allahabad whereupon the out house and land appurtenant on 23 Stanley Road, Allahabad is situated. The petitioner has also prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the portion of house No. 23 Stanley Road and appurtenant land which is in the petitioner's possession. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to desist from registering any deed about transfer or alienation of house No. 23 Stanley Road, Allahabad or its appurtenant land and to declare as inoperative and void the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 16.6.2000, Annexure 8 to the writ petition by which nazul land of the aforesaid plot was converted into freehold.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The land in Civil Lines, Allahabad w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Naresh and ors. Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2186
Bhanwar Singh, J.1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner Shri Ram Naresh and two others have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 17.8.1981 (Annexure-10), 7.1.1981 (Annexure-8) and 17.5.1980 (Annexure-7), passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Deoria, Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lucknow, Camp Padrauna and the Consolidation Officer-II, Deoria respectively.2. According to the petitioners, Plots No. 1306, 1307/1, 1309, 1311, 1313 and 1319, area 5.5 acres belonged to Dil Mohammad. Umat Yakub, Nasrullah and Mastedeen before the abolition of zamanindari. All of them surrendered their tenancy rights in the aforesaid land and ceased to have any concern with all the plots. The petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu, husband of the petitioner No. 3 entered into the possession over the entire land and in this way, they acquired khudkast right and eventually became bhumidhar on the date of vesting. However, due to the inadvertence o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »