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

2009 Supreme(All) 3695

S.U.KHAN
DOD RAJ – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER, BAREILLY DIVISION, BAREILLY – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
T.S. Dabas for the Petitoners; Mahesh Narain Singh, C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri M.N.Singh, learned counsel representing Land Management Committee ? respondent No. 3 have agreed for final disposal of the second writ petition at the admission stage and for the final disposal of the first writ petition without filing counter-affidavit as the Court proposes to remand the matter to Sub Divisional Officer.

2. First writ petition is directed against five orders passed by S.D.O./Deputy Collector, Baheri District Bareilly. All the orders were passed on 1.5.2008 in case Nos. 169, 170, 171, 174 and 180 of 2007-08. The cases were registered under Section 202 and Rule 176-A of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In all the cases State was applicant and different petitioners were opposite parties in different cases. Against the said orders five revisions were filed being revision No. 92, 93, 94, 96 and 97 all of 2008-09. Commissioner, Bareilly division Bareilly dismissed the revisions on 28.5.2009. The said order has also been challenged through the first writ petition.

3. Exactly similar orders were passed against the petit
























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