Dismissed

Habibullah v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2018WRIB/4576/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad dismissed a writ petition filing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged orders dismissing an appeal on a suit to declare 1/4th ownership share in land. The judgment upheld lower courts' findings that a compromise relied upon was from a different village’s consolidation proceedings and the petitioner failed to raise objections during th

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Habibullah Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4576 of 2001

¶3

Petitioner :- Habibullah

¶4

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P. At Alld. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sankatha Rai,Dr.V.K.Rai,V.K.Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,S.M.N.Bokhari

¶5

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Case has been called out in the revised list.

¶7

Sri S.M.N. Bokhari, Advocate representing respondent nos. 5 to 7 and Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, and 3 are present.

¶8

The facts of the case as evident from the records are that the petitioner instituted Case No. 454 of 1982 under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') against respondent nos. 5 to 7 and certain other persons claiming that he had 1/4 share in the suit property. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the Trial Court i.e. the Assistant Collector, Class-I, District Mirzapur vide judgment and order dated 15.10.1988. The aforesaid judgment was passed by the Trial Court relying on some compromise entered into between the parties in Case No. 57(7) registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') wherein it was admitted by the respondents that petitioner had 1/4 share in the property which was subject of the aforesaid objections. Against the judgement and decree dated 15.10.1988 passed by the Appellate Court, respondent nos. 5 to 7 filed an appeal before respondent no. 3 which was registered as Appeal No. 2 and was allowed by respondent no. 3 vide his

¶9

judgment and order dated 3.4.1989 and the judgment and decree dated 15.10.1988 passed by the Trial Court was setaside. Against the judgment and order dated 3.4.1989 passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner filed a second appeal before respondent no. 1 i.e. Board of Revenue registering Second Appeal No. 93 of 1988-89 which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment and order dated 30.9.2000. The judgments and order dated 30.9.2000 and 3.4.1989 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 3, respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶10

As stated earlier, a perusal of the judgment dated 15.10.1988 passed by the Trial Court shows that Case No. 454 of 1982 instituted by the petitioner was upheld by the Trial Court relying on some compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondent nos. 5 to 7 in Case No. 57(7) under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 whereby the said respondents had allegedly admitted that the petitioner had 1/4 share in the plots which were subject of the aforesaid objections. In their judgments and order dated 30.9.2000 and 3.4.1989 respondent nos. 1 and 3 have recorded a finding that the aforesaid Case No. 57(7), relied upon by the Trial Court, was passed in consolidation proceedings relating to some other village, and therefore, could not be a ground to decree the suit under Section 229B of the Act, 1953 which was filed in relation to other properties situated in other village. In their judgments and order dated 30.9.2000 and 3.4.1989 respondent nos. 1 and 3 have also held that the petitioner had not raised any objections regarding the suit property during the

¶11

consolidation proceedings held in the present village and therefore Case No. 454 of 1982 and the issues raised in the same were barred by Section 49 of the Act, 1953. There is no illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings and reasons given by respondent nos. 1 and 3 in their judgments and order dated 30.9.2000 and 3.4.1989.

¶12

The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.4.2018 Satyam

Habibullah v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habibullah v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitri Devi Vs D.D.C.

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs the State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Gulaicha Devi Vs Board of Revenue and Others

Triveni Singh Vs D.D.C. Mirzapur and Others

Lakhpat Singh Vs Joint Director of Consolidation and Others

Rishi Pal Singh and Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others