The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the District Judge's order which set aside an order declaring land surplus due to non-service of notice on the tenure holder. The Court found no proof of service and held the impugned order was not erroneous.
Writ petition dismissed; no interference warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14898 of 2000
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- District Judge/Appellate Authority And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Madhusudan Dikshit
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
ßJheku th eSaus ,d fdrk uksfVl /kkjk 8 ¼4½ dk cqUnq djs rkehy dj fn;k gS fjiksVZ lsok esa izLrqr gSAß
“Sir, I have served a notice under Section 8(4) on Bundu. Report is submitted.”
2
(English Translation by Court)
Order Date :- 3.7.2019 Pkb/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the District Judge's order setting aside the Prescribed Authority decision due to lack of proof of service of notice.
Whether payment of compensation by the authority indicates that the prior procedural defect regarding service of notice was condoned or waived.
If the appeal against the decree of the District Judge is dismissed with no interference being warranted.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State Of U.P.
District Judge/Appellate Authority
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
