Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.Varadarajan : M.Fazal Ali Syed
Kamlesh Kumari
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 922 of 1981
Date of Decision : 2/19/81
Employment and Service – Contention - Notice of recrimination - Petition is that even assuming that finding of prescribed authority that transfer was not bona fide is correct prescribed authority was in error in not excluding land said to have been transferred from surplus area – Held, Contention is well founded and must prevail - In these circumstances court set aside the judgment of High court and that of prescribed authority and remit case to prescribed authority to decide surplus land in accordance with S. 12-A.(d) of Act by excluding the area which was subject of transfer as far as possible - Appeal is disposed of
Syed M.Fazal Ali, J.
(1) THE short point taken by Mr Ashoke Sen in support of the petition is that even assuming that the finding of the prescribed authority that the transfer was not bona fide is correct, the prescribed authority was in error in not excluding the land said to have been transferred from the surplus area. The land which was the subject-matter of transfer was covered by Plot 460. The contention is well founded and must prevail. In these circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the High court and that of the prescribed authority and remit the case to the prescribed authority to decide the surplus land in accordance with S. 12-A.(d) of the Act by excluding the area which was the subject of transfer as far as possible.
(2) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
