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

1950 Supreme(All) 13

WALI ULLAH, WANCHOO
MOHD. AYUB – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.S.SARAN, Gyan Chand Mathur, K.L.MISHRA, Vishwamitra

WALI ULLAH, J.

( 1 ) I agree to the order proposed to be passed by my learned brother. In view of the elaborate arguments addressed to us on certain aspects of the case and in view of the fact that the case was referred by a learned single Judge to a Bench of two Judges, I wish to add a few observations of my own.


( 2 ) ON the evidence in the case it is clear that the authorities of the Madarsa known as Madarsa miftahu-1ulum have made certain new constructions. The town of Mau was till recently a notified area. Shri Girish Chandra, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mohammadabad was the chairman of the Notified Area Committee. Soon after the constructions had been completed, a tussle appears to have ensued between the Madarsa authorities on the one hand and those who were interested in the Ram Lila and Bharat Milap on the other. I have no doubt in my mind that at first an attempt was made to have a portion of the new constructions demolished under the orders of the Notified Area authorities. In this the Sub-Divisinal Magistrate, Shri Girish chandra, took a prominent part. This attempt, however, was frustrated because it so happened that the Notified Area Committee, by means of a reso

























































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