Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B.N. NIGAM, J.
Ram Shanker - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 380 of 1962.
Decided On : 18-07-1966
JUDGMENT
B.N. Nigam, J. - Ram Shanker has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Commissioner on the grounds set forth in the petition, orders being embodied in annexures 2 to 7.
2. Several preliminary objections have been raised. The first preliminary objection is that the petitioner has made incorrect statements in paragraphs 19 and 20 and another paragraph 20.(Two paragraphs bear the number 20). In all these three paragraphs the petitioner mentions only the first appeal, only one second appeal and only revision. From annexures 6, 7, and 8 it appears that 26 first appeals were filed by Ram Shanker, all of them were dismissed. From Annexure 7 it appears that 14 second appeals were filed and all of them were dismissed. From Annexures 8 it appears that 13 connected revisions were filed and all of them were dismissed. According to paragraph 1 only the case of Nathu is not before this court. It, therefore, appears to me that the petitioner should have filed at least 13 writ petitions and he could not have raised the whole matter in one writ petition. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as he held the land under one Patta, therefore the petitioner filed only one writ petition. That may be so. This writ petition can relate to only one order passed in annexure 8, i.e., the order passed in one revision application. As such, this preliminary objection must prevail. As the order in 12 revision application has become final, there can be no interference in the 13th case. It also appears that the petitioner has sought no relief against the order embodied in annexure 8.
3. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to hear the petitioner's learned counsel on merits. I, therefore, see no force in this writ petition and dismiss it with costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
