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

2011 Supreme(All) 2276

A.P.SAHI
SUBHAG – Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE, U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
A.N. Srivastava for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Ganesh Pandey, M.N. Singh, R.S. Ram and Radhey Shyam Yadav for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and are founded on common facts as such are being disposed of together with the consent of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri R.S. Ram for the contesting respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Land Management Committee. The State has not filed any counter-affidavit and since the facts are not disputed at this stage, it is no longer necessary to keep the matter pending as the private respondent has filed a counter-affidavit.

2. The short question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the lease granted in their favour in the year 1986 had become final and the issue relating to such grant could not be reopened after 10 years on an application moved by the contesting respondents in the year 2006. The submission is that the show-cause notice was barred by limitation.

3. The petitioners filed their objections before the learned Collector after the issuance of the notice raising this issue of limitation. The Collector answered the said issue 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