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

1998 Supreme(All) 381

D. P. MOHAPATRA, G. P. MATHUR
RAJNI KANT SAHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.R.DUBEY, TRIBENI SHANKER

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THE question which requires consideration here is whether a special appeal lies against the judgment of a single Judge rendered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein orders passed by the Prescribed Authority under Utta. r Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been challenged.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed a writ petition challenging several orders passed by the prescribed authority whereby his 24 bighas of land was declared as surplus and the application moved by him indicating his choice of the plots which he wanted to retain was rejected. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge by the judgment and order dated 9. 9. 1997 and the present special appeal has been filed assailing the said judgment. The provision for special appeal is contained in Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. 1952 (for short high Court Rules) and in terms thereof, no special appeal is maintainable against the Judgment of a single Judge rendered in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the constitution in respect of any judgment or order of a Tribuna














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