Skip to content


Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 922 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC1248; (1982)3SCC315
AppellantSmt. Kamlesh Kumari
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Excerpt:
- sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) & 20: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] proof as to illegal gratification - appellant/patwari allegedly demanded bribe from complainant for conversion of temporary lease - money was recovered from possession of appellant in his house where trap was laid - number of notes recovered had matched with numbers noted - evidence of complainant and other witnesses was consistent and credible appellant could not rebut presumption under section 20 by adducing evidence to prove defence plea that amount was paid as repayment of loan held, conviction of appellant is proper. sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) & 20: [lokeshwar singh panta & b. sudershan reddy,jj] proof as to illegal gratification - appellant/patwari allegedly demanded bribe from complainant for.....s.m. fazal ali, j.1. the short point taken by mr. ashok sen in support of the petition is that even assuming that the finding of the prescribed authority that the transfer was not bona fide is correct, the prescribed authority was in error in not excluding the land said to have been transferred from the surplus area. the land which was the subject matter of transfer was covered by plot no. 460. the contention is well founded and must prevail. in these circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the high court and that of the prescribed authority and remit the case to the prescribed authority to decide the surplus land in accordance with section 12a(d) of the act by excluding the area which was the subject of transfer as far as possible.2. the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Judgment:

S.M. Fazal Ali, J.

1. The short point taken by Mr. Ashok Sen in support of the petition is that even assuming that the finding of the Prescribed Authority that the transfer was not bona fide is correct, the Prescribed Authority was in error in not excluding the land said to have been transferred from the surplus area. The land which was the subject matter of transfer was covered by plot No. 460. The contention is well founded and must prevail. In these circumstances, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and that of the Prescribed Authority and remit the case to the Prescribed Authority to decide the surplus land in accordance with Section 12A(d) of the Act by excluding the area which was the subject of transfer as far as possible.

2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //