BUDH SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR
LAWS(UTN)-2005-10-20
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on
October 18,2005
BUDH SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
Additional Collector, Haridwar
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHAKUNTALA DEVI JAM VS. KUNTAL KUMARI [REFERRED TO]STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ADMINISTRATOR HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
G P SRIVASTAVA VS. R K RAIZADA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Rajesh Tandon, J. -
(1.)HEARD Shri Sharad Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned C.S.C. and Sri. andan Arya, Learned Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.)BY the present writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31 -03 -1993 and 29 -05 -1989 passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that notice in the form of Akar Patra 49 -Ka was issued in the month of June, 1987 stating therein that the Petitioner is in possession of the land since 1394 fasli. Notice was issued by the Tehsildar alleging about the unauthorized occupation of the Petitioner over the land of Khasra No. 103 area 1 -1 -0 and Khasra No. 104 area 0.10.10 by planting Mango trees of village Habibpur Niwada, Pargana Bhagwanpur, tehsil Roorkee, district Haridwar. On the basis of the aforesaid notice issued against the Petitioner a case No. 131 of 1987 Gaon Sabha Habibpur Niwada v. Budh under Section 122 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was started in the court of Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Roorkee, district Hardwar.
(3.)THE Petitioner filed his objection stating therein that for the last 40 years there is a grove of the Petitioner and the same continued before the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act came into force. The Petitioner was also examined by the lower court regarding his occupation for the last 40 years over the land in dispute. On 29th May, 1989 the Tehsildar has passed the order directing the eviction of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner has preferred a revision before the Collector, district Haridwar on 15 -01 -1992. While filing the revision, the Petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware about the order passed in the year 1989 and he came to know when the Amin went on the spot. The revisional court has passed the order refusing to condone the delay. However, after deciding the question of limitation he proceeded to hear the case on merits.
(2.)BY the present writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31 -03 -1993 and 29 -05 -1989 passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that notice in the form of Akar Patra 49 -Ka was issued in the month of June, 1987 stating therein that the Petitioner is in possession of the land since 1394 fasli. Notice was issued by the Tehsildar alleging about the unauthorized occupation of the Petitioner over the land of Khasra No. 103 area 1 -1 -0 and Khasra No. 104 area 0.10.10 by planting Mango trees of village Habibpur Niwada, Pargana Bhagwanpur, tehsil Roorkee, district Haridwar. On the basis of the aforesaid notice issued against the Petitioner a case No. 131 of 1987 Gaon Sabha Habibpur Niwada v. Budh under Section 122 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was started in the court of Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Roorkee, district Hardwar.
(3.)THE Petitioner filed his objection stating therein that for the last 40 years there is a grove of the Petitioner and the same continued before the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act came into force. The Petitioner was also examined by the lower court regarding his occupation for the last 40 years over the land in dispute. On 29th May, 1989 the Tehsildar has passed the order directing the eviction of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner has preferred a revision before the Collector, district Haridwar on 15 -01 -1992. While filing the revision, the Petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware about the order passed in the year 1989 and he came to know when the Amin went on the spot. The revisional court has passed the order refusing to condone the delay. However, after deciding the question of limitation he proceeded to hear the case on merits.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.