Allahabad Court January 2010 Judgments

Shiv Dayal and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sarvasri Kunal Ravi Singh, Ramesh Singh and R.S. Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are represented by Sarvasri O.P. Misra and Pradeep Chandra.2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders passed by the three Consolidation authorities, that is, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, rendered on 24.12.1973, disposing of the Revision, order of the Settlement Officer, Kanpur, dated 9.7.1973, dismissing the Appeal of the petitioners and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kanpur, dated 21.4.1973, allowing the Suit preferred by Rajendra etc. sons of Kanhaiya Lal. All the three Consolidation courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact allowing claim put-froth by the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, sons of Kanhaiya Lala.3. In the present case, initially the proceedings were initiated ...

Purnamasi Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(2)AWC1940(1)

ORDERAmreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.1. The petitioner is claiming correction of his date of birth on the basis of a horoscope.2. There is no provision under law so as to raise a conclusive foregone presumption in favour of the petitioner in respect of the date of birth as indicated in the horoscope. For this the petitioner will have to lead evidence in a suit to be filed before the court of competent civil jurisdiction. The petitioner is educationally qualified and was working as a Collection Amin. He has passed his matriculation in 1969 where his date of birth recorded is 31.1.1950. The date of birth as reflected in the horoscope is 31.12.1952.3. In a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Sharma : 2002 (7) SCC 719 : 2003 (1) AWC 568 (SC), has rejected such a contention founded on a horoscope as against a matriculation certificate.4. This writ petition therefore cannot be entertained.5. It is accordingly dismissed....

Dinesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. Amit Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. D. Shahi, learned Standing Counsel.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service and the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Inspector General of Police rejecting the appeal.3. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that a charge-sheet was issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police (City), Lucknow, requiring him to submit reply the charges that on 7.6.1997, when the petitioner was posted as Constable at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, on 8.6.1997, he proceeded on 14 days casual leave and on expiry of leave, he should have reported for his duties on 24.6.1997, but he did not report for duties and he remained absent for duties for a period of 3 years 19 days and 10 minutes. The petitioner could not submit...

Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.08.2007 passed by Deputy Collector, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi cancelling fair price shop agreement/dealership of the petitioner (Annexure-V to the writ petition). Against the said order, petitioner filed appeal being Appeal No. 213 of 2007. Deputy Commissioner (Food), Allahabad Division, Allahabad dismissed the appeal on 30.05.2008. Said order has also been challenged.3. The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that petitioner's agreement/dealership has been cancelled on the direction of Sri Indrajeet Saroj, Minister, Samaj Kalyan, Bal Vikas Pushtahar, Krishi Vitaran, Krishi Videsh Vyapar and Krishi Export Department, U.P. The Minister concerned is respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. Annexure-IV to the writ petition is photostat copy of application given by Tirathraj, respondent No. 6 and two others to the Minister concerned. In the said application,...

Union of India (Uoi) Through G.M. Northern Railway Vs. Smt. Savatri De ...

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Smt Savitri Devi, widow of Late Shiv Prasad Tiwari (deceased) approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow for payment of compensation under Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989, in short, Act with the allegation that her husband Shri Shiv Prasad Tiwari was travelling in train No. 5222 Rapti Sagar Express on 25.2.2003. He was going from Lucknow to Kanpur Central after purchasing a second class journey ticket. On account of sudden jerk, he fell down from the train and later on succumbed to the injuries. The inquest report was prepared at Medical College, Lucknow. However, it has been stated by the claimant that the ticket could not be recovered from the body of the deceased.3. The appellant filed written statement before the tribunal for payment of compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. The tribunal observed that the deceased was travelling in the train and all of a sudden, on account of sudden...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(3)AWC2424

Ram Autar Singh, J.1. These first appeals have arisen out of judgments and awards dated 29.3.2008 passed by Shri V.K. Mishra, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Muzaffarnagar, (hereinafter 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 265 of 1998, M.A.C.P. Nos. 116 and 117 of 1999, M.A.C.P. No. 287 of 1998, M.A.C.P. No. 421 of 1998, M.A.C.P. No. 422 of 1998. M.A.C.P. No. 423 of 1998, M.A.C.P. No. 475 of 1999 and M.A.C.P. No. 476 of 1999 (hereinafter 'claim petition' respectively.2. In F.A.F.O. No. 166 of 2009 claimants Ashok Kumar and Master Ashu claiming themselves to be husband and son of deceased Smt. Sunita instituted M.A.C.P. No. 265 of 1998 with prayer to pass an award for a sum of Rs. 10,32,000 as compensation alongwith interest under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'Act'). The learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 15,000 per month as notional income of Smt. Sunita aged about 38 years applying multiplier according to Second Schedule to Sec...

Vinay Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(10)AWC2094

1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the auction notice dated 3rd of December, 2009 (Annexure No. 4) issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Varanasi.2. Short facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a Bridge exists over river SAI on National Highway No. 56 at Jalalpur in the district of Jaunpur. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department issued notice for settlement of the right to collect toll over the aforesaid Bridge, by public auction on 5th of January, 2010.3. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid auction notice on the ground that the Bridge situated over river SAI at National Highway No. 56 belongs to the Union Government and therefore, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, a functionary of the State Government, has no right to issue any pubic notice for settlement of right to collect toll.4. It is further case of the petitioner that as National Highway No. 56 is maintai...

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Naima Rehman and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(3)AWC2435

Ram Autar Singh, J.1. This first appeal arises out of judgment and award dated 27.5.2006 passed by Shri P. K. Mishra, learned Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter 'The Tribunal'), Rampur in M.A.C.P. No. 141 of 2004 whereunder the claim of Rs. 12,50,000 as compensation alongwith 4% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition has been allowed.2. Being aggrieved thereby the U.P.S.R.T.C. appellant (hereinafter the appellant) has preferred this appeal. The facts of the case in a narrow compass are recapitulated hereinbelow:3. The petition was moved by the claimant-respondents against appellant and two others under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with this allegation that on 1.7.2004 Khalid Hussain, husband of the claimant Smt. Naima Rehman alongwith his brother Kamran Ahmad was coming from Dhamora to Rampur by Motorcycle No. U.P.22-C/0791 with moderate speed on left side of the road and when he reached in front of Wings & Nest H...

Babbu Ram Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(2)AWC2092

ORDERAmreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice of retirement and he contends that his date of birth is 3rd January, 1958 and not 3rd January, 1952 as mentioned in the service book. The service book was prepared when the petitioner was regularized long back in the year 1990. A photostat copy of the service book indicates that the same was prepared after obtaining the thumb impressions of the petitioner, which are contained in the service book. The petitioner, therefore, had full knowledge of the entries made in the service book as it was prepared in his presence.3. In this view of the matter, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner came to know about the said entry in the year 2009. only. The aforesaid plea cannot be accepted. The correction of the date of birth as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be admitted at the fag end of the career keeping in view the law laid down in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. v....

Aboo Hurera and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Narayan Shukla, J.1. Heard Mr. Mohan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel as well as Mr. N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3.2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31st of December, 2009, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich, whereby he has set aside the order dated 19th of February, 2007, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, inter alia on the ground that the order is without jurisdiction as against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was interlocutory in nature the revision was not maintainable. By means of order dated 19th of February, 2007, the Settlement Officer Consolidation by setting aside the order dated 10th of December, 1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer remanded the case to pass a fresh order on merit after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.3. Briefly, the case set up by the petitioners is that the land of Khata No. 90, situated a...