Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2514
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Premises No. 113/119, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is the subject-matter of dispute which is presently in occupation of the petitioner being the tenant. The contesting respondent No. 1 is its landlord. He was serving in the Steel Plant at Durgapur (State of West Bengal) on the post of senior manager and was provided with Category VI Type House No. 1/10, Vivekanand Road, Durgapur. He was due to retire on 31st of May, 2000 on attaining the age of superannuation. Sensing his retirement, he filed an application under Sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1A) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner for release of the accommodation in question on the pleas inter alia that he requires the said accommodation for use of his family on the ground that he is to retire in near future and will settle at Kanpur in his own house and that presently he is in occupation of a public building in connection with his employment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2536
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Aditya Narain, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This second appeal has been fled against the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2007, passed in Appeal No. 9 of 2006 by the Special District Judge (E. C. Act), Varanasi confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Varanasi in Suit No. 1103 of 1997.3. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had filed a Suit No. 760 of 1997, Ram Shankar v. Raja Ram, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the land in question. Raja Ram had filed a Suit No. 1103 of 1997, Raja Ram v. Rama Shankar for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 6.5.1995. Both the suits were coupled together and decided by a common judgment of the trial court. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the agreement of sale related to Chak No. 284 area 0.151 hectare and subsequent to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC3122
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.2. No notice is being issued to private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed today.3. Petitioner was elected Gram Pradhan of village and post Bhauoopur, Block Jalalpur, tehsil Kerakat, district Jaunpur. No confidence motion against the petitioner was presented before the authority concerned by more than half of the members of the Gram Panchayat. On presentation of the No Confidence Motion, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur after satisfying himself with regard to the genuineness of the signatures on the No Confidence Motion issued a notice dated 11th November, 2008 fixing 3rd December, 2008 as the date for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the No Confidence Motion. Against the order so passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer dated 11th November, 2008, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 61265 of 2008. The writ petition was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC3126
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. Case called out in the revised-list. None has appeared for the petitioner. Sri Vijai Shanker, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 is present.2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the Auction/Objection No. 15 of 2003, Mohan Kumari v. Kailash Nath and Ors. as early as possible within three months.3. It appears that the land of the petitioner, being guarantor of the loan taken by the respondent No. 5, was auctioned. The petitioner filed objections under Rule 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules before the respondent No. 2. The said objections were numbered by Auction/Objection No. 15 of 2003.4. By the order dated 24.12.2003, the respondent No. 2 granted interim stay order. However, on 20.11.2004, on prayer made by the objectionist/revisionist-petitioner for adjournment of the case, the respondent No. 2 allowed the adjournment, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2010]320ITR114(All)
1. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, was originally framed on December 4, 1990. On the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer in respect of investment made in the construction of building by the respondent-assessee at building material market in Juhi, Kanpur, proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act was initiated and, vide order dated March 27, 2001, the Assessing Officer added the difference in the valuation made by the Departmental Valuation Officer and the investment shown by the assessee as income from other sources which order was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal, vide order dated March 31, 2005, had quashed the reassessment order.2. Heard Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-assessee.3. Relying on the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2510
ORDERA.P. Sahi, J.1. Two supplementary-affidavits have been filed explaining the delay.2. I have heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at length as well as the learned standing counsel.3. The dispute lies in a very narrow compass, namely, as to whether the land which has already been reserved as khalihan could have been transferred to the petitioner-society by the Gaon Sabha. The authorities below have categorically recorded that such transfer is impermissible. Any such resolution of the Gaon Sabha was in violation of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the rules framed therein as well as the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Land Holdings Act.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any rule or law which authorizes the Gaon Sabha to transfer the land reserved as khalihan in favour of the petitioner-society which is running an institution through a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The supplementary-affidavit has narrated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2777
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Since the matter in issue as well as prayer made is the same, both these petitions are being heard and decided by this common judgment.2. Heard the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for the respondents.3. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 (1) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1991') in pursuance of charge-sheet dated 19.3.2009 issued by respondent No. 4-Presiding Officer/Circle Officer, Chata, Mathura and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to stay further departmental disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid charge-sheet.4. The petitioner was posted as constable at Traffic Police Lines, Mathura and is presently under suspension. A charge-sheet dated 19.3.2009 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition, has also been issued to him. Charges ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2780
A.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the supplementary-affidavit filed today.2. This writ petition has been preferred by the Gaon Sabha questioning the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.12.2008 whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondent No. 4, who has transferred the land to respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 represented by Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha advocate, has been allowed on the ground, that there was no occasion for the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to have restored the appeal and to have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. However, a perusal of the revlsional order also indicates that in view of the powers conferred upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the U.P. C. H. Act, he has also entered into the merits of the main contention namely the dispute between the parties relating to the adoption of the respondent No. 4 Shyam by the original tenureholder lat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2445
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 4th January, 2009 passed by Up Zilaadhikari, Bareilly by which it has directed for recounting of votes.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that in an election held for Gram Panchayat, village Jokhanpur, Block Damkhoda, Tehsil Baheri, District Bareilly, the petitioner was declared elected. Respondent No. 3 has filed Election Petition being Election Petition No. 5/4 of 2005. In the said election petition, nine issues were framed.3. On 3rd August, 2008, respondent No. 3 moved an application for summoning of record and for recounting on which the objection was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 26th December, 2008, order was passed that the application would be disposed of at the time of hearing of the election petition itself. On the hearing of the election petition by the impugned order dated 4th January, 2009 issue Nos. 2 to 9 were d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC3031
Arun Tandon, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by two unsuccessful applicants qua grant of mining lease in respect of the plots of village Babhanpura and Singhwar, district Varanasi. The mining lease in respect of the same has been granted in favour of respondent Ashok Kumar Singh.2. Since both the writ petitions raise common issues of fact and law, they have been clubbed and are being decided by this common judgment. Facts of the case in brief are as follows:3. The District Magistrate, Varanasi published an advertisement dated 5.7.2007 inviting applications for grant of mining lease in respect of various plots of land situate in villages Singhwar, Babhanpura, Chandpur and Narottampur, district Varanasi.4. In the present writ petition the mining lease in respect of plot situate in village Singhwar and Babhanpura has been questioned, therefore facts relevant qua the same alone are being mentioned herein below:5. In response to the advertisement published, six applications we...
Tag this Judgment!