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

1966 Supreme(All) 396

G. C. MATHUR
Sukhdeo Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Satya Narain Prasad, Advocate, for the Applicant

JUDGMENT

G.C. Mathur, J. - In 1955 the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 5,0001-from the State Government for the construction of a tubewell. The terms and conditions on which the loan was granted were embodied in a document, a copy of which is filed as Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit. As a security for the aforesaid loan the petitioner hypothecated 150 bighas of his Bhumidhari land. The petitioner was unable to pay the instalments due in accordance with the terms agreed upon. thereupon proceedings were started for the recovery of the amount due as arrears of land revenue. Admittedly the amount. could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the provisions contained in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It appears that a writ of demand was issued to the petitioner, but he did not deposit the amount due. He was then arrested and sent to jail. Since the petitioner did not even then pay up the amount, an order was made under Section 2b2 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the attachment and sale of the machinery of the petitioner's tubewell. It appears that before the attached property could be put to sale, the engine or the motor was removed. According

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