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

1999 Supreme(All) 648

SUSHIL HARKAULI
KARI NAIMUDDIN – Appellant
Versus
PARGANA ADHIKARI – Respondent


S. HARKAULI, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 17- 3-1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Ghaziabad in case No. 24 of 1996-97 under Section 33/39 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, By the said order the learned Sub-Divisional Of ficer had directed for entry in the revenue record recording dispute land as Waqf Property to be deleted.

3. Admittedly, before passing this order learned Sub-Divisional Officer, did not give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who claims to be Mutwalli of the Waqf. The petitioner has shown cer tain documents, in which he alleges that 13 Biswa out of the total area of the property is recorded as Waqf property since the year 1985. He has also placed before this Court the Gazette notification published in the U. P. Gazette dated 15-2-1992 in which 13 Biswa land was recorded as Waqf property.

4. No doubt the total area which has now become disputed is 2 Bigha 11 Biswas out of which one Bigha six Biswas land is in plot No. 1277 and 1 Bigha 5 Biswa is in Plot No. 1276, which is far in excess of original 13 Biswa. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has attempted to justify this in crease in






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