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

2003 Supreme(All) 320

R.H.ZAIDI
UDAI RAJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.C.Singh, V.C.SRIVASTAVA, V.S.Choudhary

R. H. ZAIDI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22. 4. 1982 passed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 28. 7. 1987 passed by respondent No, 2.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, for short the Act was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why an area measuring 6 bighas 7 biswas 10 biswansis land out of his holding be not declared as surplus. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed an objection that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus inasmuch as the entire land was either un-irrigated or grove but the same was wrongly treated in the aforesaid notice as irrigated. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The prescribed Authority after hearing the parties and after perusing the material on the record, declared an area measuring 6 bighas 7 biswas 10 biswansis as surplus, by












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