Allahabad Court August 2012 Judgments

Santosh and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court: Allahabad

Vinod Prasad, J. 1. CHALLENGE in these two connected appeals by the three appellants Santosh (A-1), Chhatrapal (A-2) and Sunwan (A-3), , are to their convictions under section 302/34 I.P.C. and imposed sentence of life imprisonment therefor, imposed by 5th Additional Session's Judge, Hamirpur in S.T.No. 85 of 1979, State versus Chhatrapal and others, relating to police station Mahoba, district Hamirpur. 2. NARRATED briefly, unfolded background facts, as dictated orally at the police station Mahoba, district Hamirpur, by the informant (P.W. 1) Ram Swaroop, which was recorded as FIR Ext. Ka-1, and later on testified during the Session's trial by all the fact witnesses, were that informant and accused appellants were co-villagers, both being residents of village Chickhara. Informant's father Radha Charan and deceased Roop Singh's father Jamuna Das were real sibling brothers and hence informant and deceased both were cousins. Puniya @ Ahillya (P.W. 3) was deceased's wife and Subhash @ Sant...

Uma Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Thru Principal Secy

Court: Allahabad

1. THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who happens to be the complainant of Case Crime No. 376/2012, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3 (1) XII S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Fakhrpur, District-Bahraich with a prayer that Superintendent of Police, Bahraich and Principal Secretary Home, U.P. Lucknow be directed to transfer the investigation of the aforesaid case crime number from Police Station Fakharpur, District-Bahraich to any other police agency due to certain reasons mentioned in the writ petition as well in the representation (Annexure 3) made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich. 2. IT has also been pleaded in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner has even approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich on 24.07.2012 by moving an application vide annexure-2 with regard to redressal of aforesaid grievance but no order has been passed by him. Accused are roaming freely, neither the Investigating Office...

Bhupendra Singh Vs. Board of Revenue U P

Court: Allahabad

1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. THIS petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 12.2.1992 and 26.9.1988 passed by opposite parties no.1 and 2 respectively. The facts in short giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner purchased a cold storage in district Barabanki in the court auction and requisite deposit was made by the petitioner. The Civil Judge, Barabanki issued a sale certificate on 14.5.1987. The petitioner deposited the requisite amount as required under law in the court. The matter was referred to the Collector by Sub-registrar. A show because notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed objection to the same alleging therein that the stamp duty has already been paid in accordance with the provisions of law and determination of stamp duty by the Sub-registrar was illegal. It was further alleged that the Sub-registrar had no jurisdiction to make any objection in respect of the sale made in t...

Ram Avtar Vs. Dy Director of Consolidation

Court: Allahabad

1. HEARD Shri Devi Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel as well as Shri S.P.S. Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. FACTS in brief of the present case are that aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.1978 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ram Avtar son of Mahavir resident of Gram Salem Bhadari, Pargana Rampur, Tehsil Lalganj, District-Pratapgarh filed a revision bearing Revision No.8884 of 1442 "Ram Avtar vs. Gaon Sabha" under Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings, Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh which was dismissed on 6.6.1979. Thereafter, Manohar son of Manbodh on 27.4.2006 moved an application for review of the said order along with an application for condonation of delay. In the meantime, the present petitioner Ram Avtar filed a petition (Writ Petition No.2821 (MS) of 2010) under Article 227 of the constitution of India, disposed of by an order dated 13.5.2010, on reproducti...

Ram Piston and Rings Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012AIR(NOC)301

The petitioner has come up assailing the order dated 15.7.2005 passed by the Registrar exercising powers under of the Registration Act, 1908, whereby he has refused to register the agreement to sell presented by the petitioner in relation to Plot No.B-6 (B-6/1) measuring 3747 Sq.Mtrs. The facts on record are that the plot was allotted to M/s Seema Enterprises on lease hold (Respondent No.4 herein) by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation through a registered deed dated 13.3.2003. The extent of land allotted to Respondent No.4 was approximately a little over 10000 Sq. Mtrs. The petitioner required the said land which was adjacent to it and the Respondent No.4 is stated to have agreed to transfer the said plot which was situated at the back side of the petitioner industrial unit. The two companies entered into an agreement on 18.11.2004; copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1. The dispute centres round the registration of this document. The contention of the petit...

Harinath Shukla Vs. State of U P

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Nagesh Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Mahesh Narain Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4. Gram Panchayat. 2. Notice need not be issued to respondents no. 5 to 10 in view of the order being passed herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner Administration, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in Appeal No. 87 of 2001, Girja Shankar Shukla and another vs. Hari Nath Shukla and others, whereby an earlier order dated 14.09.2001 passed in restoration application no. 12/31 of 2000 filed in original suit no. 75 of 2000, Hari Nath Shukla vs. Chandrama Shukla and others, under Section 229-B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the trial court by framing an issue which has to be decided on merits after evidence is taken from...

Ram Piston and Rings Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

The petitioner has come up assailing the order dated 15.7.2005 passed by the Registrar exercising powers under of the Registration Act, 1908, whereby he has refused to register the agreement to sell presented by the petitioner in relation to Plot No.B-6 (B-6/1) measuring 3747 Sq.Mtrs. The facts on record are that the plot was allotted to M/s Seema Enterprises on lease hold (Respondent No.4 herein) by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation through a registered deed dated 13.3.2003. The extent of land allotted to Respondent No.4 was approximately a little over 10000 Sq. Mtrs. The petitioner required the said land which was adjacent to it and the Respondent No.4 is stated to have agreed to transfer the said plot which was situated at the back side of the petitioner industrial unit. The two companies entered into an agreement on 18.11.2004; copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1. The dispute centres round the registration of this document. The contention of the petit...

Subhash Chandra Purwar Vs. District Judge Mahoba

Court: Allahabad

Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Smt. Abha Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition though by referring to Article 226 of Constitution has been filed but in substance it has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution assailing judgment dated 25th February, 1999 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by District Judge, Mahoba in S.C.C. Revision No.01 of 1998 (Laxman Prasad Tamakar Vs. Subhash Chandra Purwar) whereby Revisional Court while allowing revision has set aside the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1997 passed by Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mahoba in S.C.C. Suit No.01/1995. 3. The facts in brief are as under: 4. The petitioner Subhash Chandra Purwar, S/o Badri Prasad Purwar filed suit No.1/95 under Section 20(2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) (herei...

Kailash Vs. State of U P

Court: Allahabad

1. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 09.07.2012, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor Camp, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar in Revision No. 144/262 (Pramod Nagar and others Vs. Kailash and others), under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, by which the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as DDC) has allowed the Revision filed by the respondents and set aside the order, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 17.01.2011, and maintained the order, passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 12.08.2010. 2. The dispute relates to carving out of a nali through Plot No. 261. The only submission made by Shri Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the order passed by the DDC is illegal, for the reason that, before him, there were two khataunis, one, with respect to from 1390 F to 1315 F and the other from 1397 F to 1901F. Over an area of .140 hectares in plot N...