Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All121
Desai, J.1. This is an application in revision against conviction under Section 18 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (Act No, 23 of 1931). There is no dispute about the facts; the conviction is challenged on the ground that the Act was unconstitutional and became void on the passing of the Constitution. On a search of the applicant's house on 11-6-1950 in execution of a search warrant issued by the District Magistrate of Azamgarh cyclostyled leaflets were recovered. Some leaflets contained the constitution of the United Provinces Khet Majdoor Union, some were entitled 'Conspiracy of Great Britain and America to start third world War' and the others contained communist propaganda. The name of the printer was not printed on any of them.2. Section 15 of the Act lays down that a District Magistrate mayby order in writing and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, authorise any person by name to publish a news sheet, or to publish hews sheets from time to time.A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1963All71; 1963CriLJ138
ORDERW. Broome, J. 1. These six criminal revision applications from Kanpur involve identical questions of law and may conveniently be dealt with together. Proceedings have been launched against all the six applicants under Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956, on the ground that they are prostitutes and that in the interests of the general public they should be asked to remove themselves from the places where they are at present residing. Objections have been filed at the initial stage of the proceedings in the Court of the City Magistrate of Kanpur, before whom the cases are pending, claiming that the proceedings are not legally maintainable and should be dropped; but the learned Magistrate has repelled this argument and the applicants have accordingly been obliged to approach this Court. 2. The contention of the applicants is twofold : firstly that the Magistrate is not entitled to take action against them under Section 20 Suppression of Immora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1966All412
Satish Chandra, J. 1. In this group of writ petitions the main questions raised are common. The facts requisite for the decision of the common questions are also similar. All these can conveniently be decided by one judgment.2. The petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution. They pray that the orders of the authorities constituted under the U. P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 be quashed.3. In response to notices served on the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the Large Land Holdings Tax Act, the petitioners filed returns showing the annual valuation of their land holdings. The assessing authority did not accept the returns and called upon the petitioners to prove it. The petitioners filed oral and documentary evidence in support of their case that certain disputed areas of land were not theirs but were the holdings of their wives or sons or brothers in view of a partition of the joint family properties between the members of the family, by a partition decree or by a will o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1967All341
Satish Chandra, J.1. This and the two companion petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge the constitutional vires of the Opium Act (Act XIII of 1857) whereunder the respondents have completely banned the cultivation of poppy in pargana Jaunsar Bawar in the district of Dehradun.2. The petitioners state that they are the residents of pargana Jaunsar Bawar. Tehsil Chakrata district Dehra Dun and carry oh the occupation of agricultural cultivation in small hilly fields. From times immemorial the petitioners and their ancestors have been cultivating poppy for purposes of using its seed as staple food. It is alleged that poppy is used for preparing Chapati. Dal and even Chatni. Before 1950 there was absolutely no restriction upon the cultivation of poppy for purposes of extraction of opium or for seeds. With the enactment to the Opium and RevenueLaws (Extension of Application) Act, 1960, the Opium Act, 1857 was extended to the Pargana of Jaunsar Bawar. Section 8 of the Opium...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1973All89
A.K. Kirty, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant, Anant Lal Goel is the owner of the premises numbered 85-D and 85-E, K.P. Kakkar Road, Allahabad. The upper portion of the building, 85-D, is used by the appellant for residential purposes. 85-E consists of three shops on the ground floor. One out of the three shops on the ground floor was let out by him to the respondent under a registered lease deed dated 30-8-1951 for a period of three years with effect from 1-9-1951 on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. Admittedly, the respondent continued to remain in occupation of the shop as a month to month tenant on the same rent after the expiry of the period of three years. The landlord by notice dated 10-4-1961 (Ex. 1) terminated the tenancy and filed a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 75/-. This suit was decreed by the trial court in toto. The trial court's decree has been reversed by the lower appellate court and the entire suit has been dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1980All69
S.C. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal arises from a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits and damages. The suit arose in the circumstances indicated hereinafter. Respondents 1 and 2 Mohammad Shuaul Islam and Smt. S.K. Islam are the owners of a house situate at Rana Pratap Marg. This house was allotted in favour of the appellant Satya Sindhu Pande on 21-10-1963. In pursuance of this allotment order he entered into possession of the property in dispute. This allotment order related to the entire house. On a writ petition filed by the owners this allotment order was quashed by this court on 2-11-1965. Thereafter another allotment order was passed on 20-1-1966 in respect, of a portion of the house. This order was also quashed by this Court on 3-11-1970 on a writ petition filed by the owners. The owners thereafter filed suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits and damages. The allegation of the owners was 1 hat the accommodation in question was never vacant so as to be availab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1980All242
M.N. Shukla, J.1. In this execution second appeal the question that arises for decision is whether the compromise decree under execution was a nullity and also otherwise inexecutable ?2. The respondent is the owner of a shop in suit which was let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 26. The landlord after determining the tenancy by giving a formal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act filed a suit for ejectment with the allegation that the shop was constructed after 1951 and therefore the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. III of 1947) did not apply to it. The landlord prayed for ejectment of the appellant and claimed arrears of rent and past mesne profits up to the date of the filing of the suit. The appellant denied the allegation that the accommodation in suit was constructed after 1951 and took a definite plea that the shop was quite old and had been constructed long before 1951 and hence U. P. Act No. III of 1947 was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1985All100
R.C. Deo Sharma, J.1. This is a first appeal from the order dated 18-2-84 passed by the learned Special Judge, Lucknow, exercising the powers as an Additional District Judge. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus. There is a waqf under the name and style of Waqf Masjid Pindain having properties attached to the waqf at Lucknow. This includes a mosque and certain shops. The Shia Central Board of Waqfs exercises powers under the UP. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, and it is alleged on behalf of the appellants that in exercise of powers under the aforesaid Act the Board appointed the appellant No. 3 Sri Mujtaba Husain as utwalli of the Waqf, Since the respondents were said to be interfering in the discharge of duties of the Mutwalli (appellant No. 3) a civil suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif (North) Lucknow praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the plaintiff's management of the waqf property and realisation of rent from the tenants. In the me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All72
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the orders of the Consolidation authorities by whichthe claim of respondent No. 4 has been accepted regarding his 1/2 share in the disputed khatas.2. The parties are related to each other as given in the following pedigree. Elan | Shital | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | P | Ram ---------------- Bakshi | | | Parsan | | | Ganesh | | | Bodi | | | Mahadeo | Gaji | ------------------------------------- Rampher | | Angnu ------------------------------------- Raja Ram | Sita Ram | Jokhu3. The dispute relates to two khatas namely, Khata No. 215 and Khata No. 220 situate in village Noorpur, Pergana Sikandara district Allahabad. Even prior to the start of the consolidation operation in the village in question, there was litigation between the parties and their predecessors-in-interest regarding Khata No. 215. In the year 1958 Raja Ram and Sita Ram filed suit under S. 229B of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(2)AWC1213
O. P. Garg, J.1. The petitioner who admittedly is the tenant tn a portion (shop) of premises No. 1856 situated in mohalla Cantonment. Station Road, Banda, has challenged the order dated 3.8.2000 passed by the trial court in S.C.C. Suit No, 4 of 1998 and the order dated 19.1.2001 passed tn Revision Application No. 48 of 2000 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. It is prayed that both the orders being illegal and without jurisdiction be quashed and the respondent No. 3 be commanded not to disturb with the possession of the petitioner over the tenanted accommodation.2. At the initial stage of filing of the present petition, appearance was put in on behalf of the landlord respondent No. 3 through Sri Rajesh Tandon, senior advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj, Srivastava. He made a statement that the petition be finally disposed of on merits on the basis of the material available on record. Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner did not have any objection to ...
Tag this Judgment!