Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: allahabad Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 77 results (0.009 seconds)

Sep 17 2001 (HC)

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-17-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC328

..... and conssubmitted its recommendation to the state government which ts as under :'(1) there was no administrative or financial irregularity in 'trade-in-offer' deal concluded in 1989 nor any mediator firm/company was involved in the said deal. the allegation of dubious dealing or misappropriation of public money is baseless.(2) no case of misappropriation of fund or embezzlement has ..... to be scrutinized by the state committee are as under :(1) 'whether there was any administrative or financial irregularity in 'trade-in-offer' deal concluded in 1989. and whether any mediator firm/company took part in the said deal.(2) whether the comptroller and auditor general of india has pointed out any scam or misappropriation in para 2.5.2 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2001 (HC)

Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-31-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC169

ashok bhushan, j.1. heard sri vivek prasad mathur. advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5.2. by this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2001 passed by the board of revenue, lucknow. rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 26.2.2001. and the order dated 26.2.2001 passed by the board of revenue allowing the reference and setting aside the order dated 10.6.1997 of the sub-divisional officer. the petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.8.1997 passed by the additional commissioner, gorakhpur, making reference to the board of revenue for setting aside the order dated 10.6.1997 of the sub-divisional officer, bansi. orders dated 28.11.1996 and 24.10.1994 passed by the naib tahsildar. bans, have also been prayed to be quashed. the present writ petition has arisen out of the mutation proceedings under section 34 of the u.p. land revenue act, 1901 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the act).3. the facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are that after the death of smt. chandra dei, the mother of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was mutated on the basis of succession in the revenue record on 18.7.1994. the respondent no. 6 moved an application before the naib tahsildar for mutating his name on the basis of alleged sale deed executed by the petitioner's mother. by order dated 24.10.1994 the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 2001 (HC)

Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-21-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC498

ashok bhushan, j.1. heard sri p. k. mishra counsel for the petitioner.2. by this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 dated 28th august, 2001 and 19th december, 2000 respectively.3. the facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are ; it is stated that the writ petition arises of the mutation proceeding, shiv balak who was father of the petitioner died on 15th november. 1997. a report was made and the names of the petitioner and his brothers were mutated in the khatauni as sons of shiv balak, deceased and entry was made by revenue inspector, the proceedings for mutation under section 34 of u.p. land revenue act was initiated by the respondents claiming that their names should be mutated in place of shiv balak, deceased, on the basis of a registered will dated 22nd february, 1997, executed by shiv balak, the deceased. the mutation proceedings filed by the respondents under section 34 of the u.p. land revenue act were allowed by tahsildar vide his order dated 9th march, 1999. against the aforesaid mutation order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was allowed by the sub-divisional officer vide his order dated 24.1.2000. a revision was filed before the additional commissioner, gorakhpur challenging the order dated 24.1.2000 of sub-divisional officer. the revision was allowed by the additional commissioner setting aside the order of sub-divisional officer. the matter was taken up before the board of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2001 (HC)

Raja Ram (Decd.) Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Ram Sabad and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-10-2001

Reported in : 2001(2)AWC1651; (2001)3UPLBEC2144

orderu. k. dhaon, j.1. heard sri r. p. singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and sri v. s. tripathi appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.2. the petitioners have approached this court against the order dated 8.2.1980 passed by opposite party no. 10 and the order dated 29.8.1978 passed by opposite party no. 11.3. the brief facts of the case are that one baiju, the co-bhumidhar along with raja ram, rajmani, kalpnath and dharamraj transferred his share through the sale deed dated 16.7.1974 in favour of opposite party nos. 1 to 6 and by another sale deed executed on the same day, i.e., 16.7.1974. transferred his share in favour of opposite party nos. 7 to 9. thereafter the transferees moved the application before the consolidation officer for mutation of their names in the revenue records. the petitioners raja ram and three others filed objection and the consolidation officer rejected the mutation application on the ground that the transfer was bad as no permission under section 5 (1) (c) (u) of u. p. consolidation of holdings act was obtained from the settlement officer, consolidation prior to the execution of the sale deed. the said order waschallenged by the opposite parties before the settlement officer, consolidation who by the judgment and order dated 28.9.1978 allowed the appeal. being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed revision which too was dismissed by the revisional court by the judgment and order dated 8.2.1980. being .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 2001 (HC)

Sidh Gopal and anr. Vs. State

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-25-2001

Reported in : 2001CriLJ4393

1. this appeal arises from an order of conviction under section 302, i.p.c. against the appellant siddha gopal who was sentenced to imprisonment for life. the other appellant rajendra kumar was convicted under section 323/34, i.p.c. he was granted benefit of section 4, of u.p. first offenders probation act. in case of default in furnishing bond he was directed to serve out the sentence of three month's r.i.2. the brief facts of the case are that the chaks of sidda gopal appellant and debi deceased were contiguous since there was no mend to separate these two chaks. it was alleged that siddha gopal appellant used to cultivate some portion of the chak of the deceased every year. when this year siddha gopal tried to cultivate some portion of the chaks belonging to the deceased he raised an objection to this act of these appellants. siddha gopal agreed that at the time of harvesting the entire land of their's will be measured and if any extra portion belonging to debi was shown by him crop standing thereon shall be harvested by debi. therefore, the matter was amicably settled in the said manner. on the morning of 2-10-1977 when siddha gopal was harvesting his jwar crop debi was present there. he raised an objection to the harvesting by siddha gopal without measurement of their fields. appellant siddha gopal challenged debi and tried to assault him. debi retreated to his house and the crop was harvested by siddha gopal.3. after the incident it is alleged that debideceased , his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 2001 (HC)

Kunj Behari Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-02-2001

Reported in : 2001(1)AWC613

ordershitla pd. srivastava, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23.8.2000, passed by respondent no. 1, which has been filed as annexure-12 to the present writ petition, and further prayer has been made to issue a direction that alleged claim of respondent nos. 5 and 6 in respect of property in question based on mortgage deed dated 2.2.1974 is not maintainable being barred by section 49 of the u. p. consolidation of holdings act. the other prayer has been made for issueof ad interim mandamus staying the operation of the impugned order of the respondent no. 1 dated 23.8.2000 including dispossession of the petitioner from the property in question.2. sri n. b. tewari, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it has arisen out of the proceedings under section 34 of the land revenue act. his submission is that this court has taken a view in a case in smt. rani devi v. board of revenue, 1999 rd 633, that the writ petition against order passed in the proceedings arising out of mutation case is not maintainable. he has further submitted that mutation proceedings is summary in nature and it does not decide the right of the parties, therefore, that judgment and order passed in the mutation will not bound the parties nor the regular court is bound by the said order and can take its own decision, therefore, the writ petition under article 226 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2001 (HC)

Shabbir Ahmad Through L.R. Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Az ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-05-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC102

r.h. zaidi, j.1. by means of this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, petitioner (shabbir ahmad since deceased, parvez ahmad his son) prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.5.1975 passed by the deputy director of consolidation, azamgarh, allowing the revision filed by siraj, father of respondent nos. 3 and 4, in the proceedings under section 12 of the u. p. consolidation of holdings act (for short 'the act').2. the relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the dispute relates to khata no. 3 of village bhiti, khata no. 12 of village pardaha and khata no. 4 of village shahadatpur, tehsil mohammadabad gohna, district azamgarh. (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute'). in the basic year, land in dispute was recorded in the name of abdul halim s/o abdul aziz (since deceased). as abdul halim was dead and villages where the land in dispute are situated, were under the operation of the act, the petitioner shabbir ahmad filed an application under section 12 of the act for mutation of his name and the names of nisar and siraj, two other sons of late abdul halim and brothers of the petitioner, as they were only heirs and successors of the deceased. to the application filed bythe petitioner siraj, father of respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed an objection claiming that khata no. 3 of village bhiti was joint of him and nlsar while two other khatas, i.e .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2001 (HC)

Rajvir Singh and Others Vs. Collector/District Magistrate, Muzaffarnag ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-30-2001

Reported in : 2001(1)AWC806

orderbinod kumar roy and d. r. chaudhary, jj.1. the prayer of the petitioners based on registered sale deed, mutation order and c.h.-23 issued under the consolidation act is to quash the order dated 20.11.1998 passed by the collector/district magistrate, muzaffarnagar (respondent no. 1) in case no. 18 of 1998 as contained in annexure-6 registered on a miscellaneous application filed by respondent no. 3 kali ram as contained in annexure-5.2. vide order dated 22.12.1998, the following interim order was passed in this writ petition :'until further orders, the operation of the order dated 20.11.1998 shall remain stayed. however, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 will have a right to lodge an f.i.r. against the petitioner, if they so desire.'3. a perusal of the impugned order shows, inter alia, as follows :(i) the question of correctness of the sale deed dated 3.6.1998 executed in favour of the petitioners or the relevant will executed by smt. brahmo devi widow of tilak ram in favour of her four daughters (the petitioners claim to be purchaser from one of them) cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding ; (ii) the issue as to whether there was any crop standing on the land in question? and if so, to whom it belonged? a decision in relation thereto must be taken ; (iii) the sugarcane crop was cut a month earlier by the purchasers (who are thepetitioners before us) even though they had no right over the same : (iv) the value of the sugarcane crops cut away as per the government fixed rate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2001 (HC)

Babu and anr. Etc. Vs. State of U.P. Etc.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-15-2001

Reported in : 2001CriLJ2485

m.a. khan, j.1. the above noted criminal appeal and criminal revision arise out of the same judgment and under sectioner dated 30-9-1980 passed by sri y.p. singh, the then addl. distt. and sessions judge, budaun in sesssion trial no. 408 of 1979 thereby convicting the appellants babu and mohkam of the offences punishable under sections 147/148/302 read with section 149, i.p.c. and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 149, i.p.c. and r.i. for a period of one year under section 147, i.p.c. to appellant babu as also r.i. for a period of two years under section 148, i.p.c. to appellant mohkam. accused naurangi, nami and shishpal have however been acquitted under the same under sectioner and against that acquittal, the complainant tarachand has filed the revision. since the appeal and the revision arise out of the same judgment and under sectioner, they are being disposed of by the common judgment.2. the facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants are as follows :babu and mohkam are brothers while naurangi is the cousin-in-law of the two. nami and shishpal belong to the same family. aaram singh was the father of babu and mohkam. aaram singh were four brothers and saran was one of them. chandra kesh was soran's son and barfi is his daughter. barfi is married to naurangi. ganga devi is the wife of chandra kesh. ganga devi and ram sanehi are sisters. ram sanehi was married to goverdhan, the brother of informant tarachand, saran .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2001 (HC)

Shamim Ahmad Vs. Rashida Begum and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-13-2001

Reported in : 2001(2)AWC1316

b.k. rathi, j.1. this second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2000 passed by xiiith additional district judge. allahabad in civil appeal no. 88 of 1998. the facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : 2. the suit was filed by the respondent no. 1 against the appellant and other respondents for the relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 20.2.1981 registered on 5.6.1981 executed by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the appellant regarding house no. 262 (new), 247 (old) situated in dondipur and house no. 150 johnstonganj. allahabad. in brief the facts of the case are as follows : 'one abdul khaliq had two sons, namely, abdul sadiq and abdul mazeed. the respondent no. 1 is the wife of abdul mazeed. maqbool alam was son of abdul sadiq. it is alleged by the plaintiff that abdul sadiq remained in india during his life time and died on 3.1.1961. maqbool alam along with his family migrated to pakistan in the year 1951 and died in pakistan in the year 1980, that abdul sadiq was living with his brother abdul mazeed. his family having been migrated to pakistan, he gifted the house in dispute to his brother abdulmazeed on 1.12.1960. a memo inwriting regarding it was preparedon 1.1.1961, abdul mazeed giftedthis house to his wife plaintiff on12.5.1974, that, therefore, theplaintiff/respondent no. 1 is theowner of the house.3. that a collusive sale deed dated 20.2.1981 has been obtained by the appellant from district magistrate, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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