Allahabad Court March 2011 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.
Paras and Others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ram Autar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1.2. After the matter was heard at length, Sri Ram Autar Singh states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit to which learned standing counsel has no objection and it has been agreed that the matter may be disposed of finally at this stage.3. The contention raised by Sri K.R. Sirohi is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while remanding the matter has failed to exercise his jurisdiction by not entering into the issue relating to the validity of the compromise as well as the impact of the order dated 31st October, 1984. In such a situation, the order of remand before the Consolidation Officer by setting aside the order dated 01.03.1996 is unjustified. He submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation without recording any independent finding on his own on...
Riyasat Vs. State of U.P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. The appellants above named have preferred separate appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Meerut in S.T. No. 905 of 2004 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. whereby they have been convicted for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. The appellant Riyasat has further been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act for three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine and in default three months further rigorous imprisonment. The appellant Guddu alias Ejaj alias Ajimuddin has been convicted under Section 25/4 Arms Act for six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine and in default of payment of fine to three months further imprisonment and both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that Maishuddin lodged a first information report on 3.9.2004 at 11.15 P.M. that at about 8.45 P.M. the complainant along with Arif were present in the house of Mujahid alias Mu...
Smt. Omwati and Others. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. The petitioners have come up assailing the order dated 31 st January, 2011 contending that the order is erroneous in law and on facts and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error by upholding the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.08.2010. 2. It is to be noted that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had allowed a time barred appeal at the instance of the respondent no. 3- Sudhir setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.08.1997, which was in favour of the vendors of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners claim to have acquired the plot in dispute on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 08.01.1999 and 13.09.1999. On the basis whereof, mutation was ordered in favour of the petitioners in the year 1999 itself under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.4. It is to be noted that the consolidation operations in the village have been denotified in the year 1991. It is also to be noted that an alleged proceeding un...
Nawab Dulla Khan Vs. Ajiz Khan and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Heard Sri Udit Chandra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Yadav for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, in the opinion of the court, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent nos. 3 to 8 at this stage.2. The petitioner was recorded in the basic year. Against the share allocated an objection was filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The same was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 19th September, 2006 by which the said respondents 1 and 2 were allocated 1/4th share each whereas the petitioner's share stood reduced to 1/6th. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 19th July 2010 remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh on the ground that the order of the Consolidation Officer was ex-parte. 3....
Mahipal singh Vs. commissioner chitrakoot dham man. banda and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Gupta for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record.2. The writ petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 28 th July, 2006 whereby petitioner's fair price agreement has been suspended by District Supply Officer and the appellate order dated 29 th April, 2008 rejecting his appeal. 3. It appears that a surprise checking was made at the petitioner's fair price shop wherein certain irregularities were found including shortage of sugar to the extent of One Quintal 20 kilogram, in respect whereto the occupant at the shop informed the Inspecting authority that the said quantity of sugar was given to Gram Pradhan. Considering the inspection report, the District Supply Officer by order dated 28 th July, 2006 suspended the agreement of the petitioner and directed him to submit his reply/explanation within 15 days along with requisite documents. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order of suspension whic...
National Highway Authority Of India Vs. State Of U.P. Thru' Secry., Fo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the National Highway Authority of India (petitioner) making the following prayers:" (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the Recovery Citation dated 31.1.2011 issued by respondent no. 5 (Annexure1 to the Writ Petition).(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2,4 and 5 to pass appropriate order on the objections dated 28.2.2011 filed by the petitioner.(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.(iv) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."2. From the averments made in the Writ Petition it transpires that for the widening of the National Highwary No. 28 from Kilometer 0.00 to Kilometer 1.30, 0.60 Hectare Forest Land was required by the petitioner, and the said land was transferred to the petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Government Order dat...
Gopal Lal Bhalla Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge Lucknow an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. Heard Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Munawar Sultan, learned counsel for the respondents.2. Controversy involved in the present case relates to the shop situated in the premises having Municipal No. 332/20 situated at Sher-wali-Kothi, Sharrafa Bazar, Chowk Road, Lucknow under the tenancy of the petitioner.2. Respondent no. 3 vide sale-deed dated 22.05.2000 purchased the same from the previous owner-Jagdish Chandra Agarwal. Thereafter, on 22.03.2007, moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release. Accordingly, a PA case no. 6/2007(Smt. Usha Agarwal v. Gopal Lal Bhalla) registered before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge(S.D.), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. 3. In the release application it has been mentioned by respondent no. 3-landlady that she has purchased the shop in question from the then owner Sri Jagdish Chandra Agrawal by a registered sale-deed, the same be released as...
Brij Kishore Jaiswal And Another Vs. State Of U.P. Thru' Princ. Secry. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. The main question involved in these writ petitions (WPs) is, 'Whether a personsuccessful in the lottery for allotment of the country made liquor shop and who operates the shop for the entire excise yearis required to pay the licence fee at the minimum guarantee quantity (MGQ), even if no licence was issued to him, due to his failure to deposit the security amount within time.'THE FACTS2. These writ petitions are against the recovery of licence fee on the MGQ for the country made liquor shops situate at, (i) Ondeh and Malik Mau Aima District-Raiberilly in WP(Tax) 1429 of 2006 (the first WP); (ii) Suthatti, District-Jaunpur in WP(Tax) 385 of 2007 (the second WP); (iii) Bhora Bazar, District-Jaunpur in WP(Tax) 386 of 2007 (the third WP). 3. The recovery relates to the following excise years: Excise year 2002-03 (the first WP); Excise year 2003-2004 (the second WP and the third WP).4. In the aforesaid excise years, the licence for country made liquor shop was to be allotted by the lotte...
Hafiz Shah Alam. Vs. State of U.P.and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A. G. A.2. Since the facts of the case are not in dispute, this application is being finally disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties without calling for any counter affidavit. 4. The facts of the case as stated in the affidavit filed along with the application are that on the basis of a first information report lodged by the applicant as Case Crime No. 383 of 2010; State Versus Umardaraj under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against Umardaraj and four other persons. As per the allegations made in the first information report Seeba, daughter of the applicant was married to Umar Daraj on 21.10.2008. In the said marriage the applicant had spent about Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty lacs) but her husband, the petitioner and the other accused no...
M.S. Hasan and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. These three writ petitions are directed against the same order of the Appellate Authority. They have been clubbed and heard together.2. Writ Petition No. 832 of 1984 has been made the leading case. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.3. Proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960') were initiated against the petitioners of the leading case being case No. 436 of 1974 culminated in an order dated 31 st March, 1982 wherein 421.47 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, petitioners filed appeal No.33 of 1982, which was connected with appeal no. 34 of 1982. Both the appeals have been dismissed under common order of the Special Judge/ Additional District Judge, Pilibhit dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »