SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 897

SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Audhar – Appellant
Versus
Chandrapati – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-A common judgment is being passed in these two appeals as the subject matter of dispute in both of them is the same. Civil Appeal No. 6302 of 2001 has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.8.1998 passed by the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 678 of 1979. Rejection by order dated 09.12.1998 of Review Petition No. 54933/98 filed by the appellants against the said judgment has given rise to connected Civil Appeal No. 6303 of 2001.

2. The facts of this case are many and somewhat complicated but the question of law involved is a short one.

3. It is not disputed by the appellants, as is apparent from the contents of their petition for special leave, that the lands in Khata Nos. 91, 92, 95 and 96 are tenancy lands of category Bhumidari and other lands in dispute in Khata Nos. 256, 283, 356 and 357 are tenancy lands of another category Sirdari . The lands are in village Patilo Gausput, District Azam Garh in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. The writ petition before the High Court arose out of order dated 09.11.1976 of the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Azam Garh which was passed in exercise of his revisiona











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top