Allahabad Court April 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.
Ms Gas Authority of India Limited Vs. State of Up and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. We have heard Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, assisted by Shri Shubham Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for the Commercial Tax Department.2. The Gas Authority of India Limited (in short the GAIL)-the petitioner is a Government of India undertaking controlled by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. In Writ Petition No. 410 of 2011, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or prohibition restraining the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Sector-11, Commercial Taxes, Agra, from proceeding with re-assessment proceedings under Entry Tax Act for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 in pursuance to the notices dated 14.3.2011, and further to quash the order dated 8.3.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Commercial Taxes under Entry Tax Act for the same assessment years, extending the period of limitation. By Writ Petition No. 409 of 2011 the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or prohibition restraining and...
Sadhari Vs. D.D.C.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2011
1. This writ petition was admitted on 20.02.1976 and an interim order was passed to the effect that till further orders of this Court the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute shall remain stayed.2. Notices were issued to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and the office report indicates that neither the undelivered cover nor the registered notices have been returned so far.3. Accordingly, after 35 years of the institution of the writ petition there is no occasion for this Court to issue any fresh notices as none of the respondents have filed any response in spite of the fact that the stay order has been operating in favour of the petitioner. 4. The dispute appears to have been arisen under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for allotment of land during consolidation operations. The petitioner's short case before the Consolidation Authorities was that his original holding comprising of certain plots was of a total area of 1.25 acres. Out of the sa...
Amanattullah So Niyamattullah and ors. Vs. Additional District Judge, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2011
1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners challenged order dated 27.11.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no. 2, Bahraich in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2007 under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Facts in brief are that the controversy in the present case relates to six shops which are situated in Mohalla Brahmanipura, Chowk Bazar, Bahraich, purchased by respondent no. 2 to 5 on 28.02.1990 from erstwhile owner Sardar Raj Jodhveer Singh, in which the petitioners are tenants.3. On 04/06.11.2000, landlord/respondents moved an application for release of six shops under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) & 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Accordingly, the following cases registered before the Prescribed Authority/5 th Upper Civil Judge, Bahraich.1. Rent Control Case no. 5/2000 (Jyoti Kumar v. Abdul Basit).2. Rent Control Case no. 6/2000 (Jyoti Kumar v. Shurur Ahmad).3. Rent Control C...
Rajat Lal and Another Vs. Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2011
1. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28 th. June, 2006 (Annexure 13 to writ petition), order dated 13.9.2004 (Annexure 7 to writ petition) and order dated 25.9.1983 (Annexure 4 to writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents not to dispossess petitioners from land in dispute.2. Present writ petition is arises out of a proceeding under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1960. In the year 1974, proceedings were initiated against one Narendra Lal and Rajendra Lal and two ceiling cases were registered as Case Nos. 212 of 1974 and 214 of 1974. Both the cases were consolidated and decided by prescribed authority on 25.2.1975 declaring certain land as surplus. Two separate appeals were filed as Appeal Nos.377 and 378 of 1975 and State of U.P. has also filed two separate appeal Nos. 441 and 442 of 1975. By order dated 22 nd January, 1976, judgement was passed in all four appeals dismissing the appeals filed by Stat...
Mohd. Jumai Vs. the State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2011
1. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Basti (hereinafter referred to as DIOS) declining to grant permission/ approval to appointment of petitioner on the post of Sweeper on the ground that nothing has been placed before him to show that the prescribed procedure was followed such as proposal for appointment, advertisement in news paper, constitution of selection committee and appointment letter etc. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is no requirement of sending any document to the DIOS before the process of selection and appointment in respect to recruitment on the post of Sweeper in view of proviso to Regulation 101 as held by this Court in Mohan Ram v. State of U.P. & others (2009) 2 UPLBEC 1509. He further submitted that the vacancy was advertised in daily news paper Swatantra Bharat dated 7.10.2000, interview was held on 22.10.2000 wherein petitioner was selected by the selection committee and therea...
Mohd. Zafar Khan V. District Judge Hardoi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. Heard Sri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Adil Khan, counsel for respondents. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged order dated 03.09.2009 passed by District Judge, Harodi in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2008, Mohd. Waris Khan v. Mohd. Zafar thereby allowing appeal of the landlord in respect to release of a shop. 2. Factual matrix of the present case are that Mod. Waris Khan/landlord moved an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 inter alia stating therein that he is owner/landlord of shop situated at Mohalla Vehra Saudagar West, Bara Chauraha, Pargana Bangar, Tehsil and District Hardoi, purchased from its previous owner Rahul Asthana and Kapil Asthana by registered sale deed 05.07.1997, petitioner are tenant in the said shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. 3. In the release application, landlord/respondent pleaded that his family is consisting of himself and two c...
Raghvendra Nayak Vs. State of U.P. and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
Heard Sri K.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.Sahai, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents.On earlier occasion, learned Standing Counsel was permitted to obtain instructions. He has obtained instructions, specially with regard to the Government Order dated 12.1.2003. On the basis of the instructions so received he agrees for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage without entering into any controversy by filing counter affidavit.In respect of a sale deed dated 29.6.2010 proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated on the basis of the inspection report dated 31.8.2010. The Assistant Commissioner Stamp vide order dated 12.11.2010 determined the market value and the deficiency in stamp duty. The petitioner on acquiring knowledge of the said order filed application dated 23.11.2010 for recall of the above order on the ground that it was passed ex-parte without serving any notice up...
Mahesh Prasad Verma Vs. Hare Krishna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner claims himself to be tenant of a shop situated at Bharauli Bazar, near Brahmsthan, post and district Deoria for the last 24 years. The landlord respondent filed P.A. case no. 10 of 2007 under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop on the ground of personal need to establish his son in business who had completed graduation in 2005 and was unemployed though he has searched for the job. The petitioner contested the aforesaid P.A. case by filing written statement alleging that need of the landlord was not bonafide.3. After appreciation of the evidence and hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge(JD), court no. 10, Deoria allowed the release application vide judgment and order dated 4.10.2010. Appeal No. 6 of 2010 was preferred by the petitioner under section 22 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. The appellate court/District Judge, Deoria vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2011 ...
Rajendra Vs. D.D.C. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2011
1. This petition has been taken up after 35 years of its institution. The writ petition was admitted on 22nd May, 1975 and all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation were stayed. 2. Notices were issued to the respondent no. 3 but it appears that neither the respondent has turned up nor anybody has put in appearance for claiming any rights. The reason is simple as the impugned order itself records that respondent no. 3 was issueless. 3. Another issue was directed to be framed that why the property in question should not be vested in the Gaon Sabha. 4. The challenge is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation found faovur with the petitioners as they had successfully proved the Will executed in their favour by Pyare, the recorded tenure holder. There was a dispute as to whether the respondent Smt. Dharma was the wife of Pyare or not. On th...
Lakshmi NaraIn Vs. Ram Ajor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2011
1. The petitioner Laxmi Narain (Since deceased) and now represented by his heirs, aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Authorities has approached this Court praying for quashing the same on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to be declared as the recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute and the orders of the Consolidation Authorities being erroneous, the same deserves to be set aside.2. Before the Consolidation Officer, it is admitted that the plot in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The Opposite Party Ram Anjor (Since deceased) and other respondent nos. 2 to 6 contested the aforesaid entry in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the disputed plot was a grove/Sirdari of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party nos. 3 to 6 claimed plot no. 140/2, 140/1 and 140/3 as their grove and Abadi.3. The petitioner contested the claim of the opposite parties by filing evidence of possession in the shape of revenue records as evidence of title from pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »