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

2009 Supreme(All) 3066

S.U.KHAN
RIZ PAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Ravindra Mishra for the Petitioners; V.K. Singh and S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Learned Standing Counsel has agreed for final disposal of the writ petition without filing counter affidavit.

2. In this writ petition on 25.8.2009 following order was passed :

“Through five lines order contained in Annexure-1 Consolidation Officer, Anoop Sahar District Bulandshahar has cancelled the names of the petitioners which were continuing since 1992 in the Khatauni, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The land in dispute is mentioned as Shreni-3 and in possession of asamies. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that several such orders have been passed by C.O., Anoopsahar District Bulandsahar.

Shri N.P. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel shall at once seek instructions in this regard. The Court completely fails to understand that why Revenue authorities and Consolidation authorities pass orders cancelling long standing entries without hearing the parties concerned. This is virtually massacre of Justice. When large number of people are involved notice may be served through publication as held by me in 2009 (107) R.D. 405, Kunti v. Commissioner. Such types of orders are actually against the State for the reason that when such or


















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