Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: allahabad Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 139 results (0.009 seconds)

May 18 2004 (HC)

Vishwa Nath and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-18-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3141

ashok bhushan, j.1. heard sri rajesh kumar. counsel for the petitioners and sri sudhakar pandey, advocate appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5.2. by this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29th november, 2003 passed by board of revenue, order dated 3rd january, 1998 passed by sub-divisional officer, ballia and the order dated 13th november, 1997 passed by naib tahsildar, city, ballia in proceedings under section 34 of u. p. land revenue act, 1901.3. brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are ; one ram sunder was recorded tenure holder. ram sunder died on 12th april, 1993 leaving behind the petitioners as his two sons, respondent no. 5 as widow of predeceased son jadunath and respondent no. 4 as widow of predeceased grandson. a report under section 34 of u. p. land revenue act, 1901 claiming mutation was submitted by the petitioners on 19th april. 1993 on the basis of registered will dated 5th june, 1989 claimed to be executed by ram sunder in favour of the petitioners. the petitioners' case was that will has been executed in favour of the petitioners, hence their names be mutated. on issue of proclamation objections were filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5. the contesting respondents stated in the objection that no will was executed by ram sunder, deceased, and respondents being heirs of ram sunder are entitled to be recorded over the land in dispute. it was further stated in the objection that contesting respondents are in possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2004 (HC)

Raj NaraIn (D) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolida ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-23-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1641

krishna murari, j.1. by means of the present writ petition, filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.2.1973, 1.10.1973 and, passed by consolidation officer. settlement officer and deputy director of consolidation, respectively,2. the dispute pertains to khata no. 35. in the basic year it was recorded in the name of petitioners. and contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5. an objection under section 9 of the u.p. consolidation of holdings /act (hereinafter referred to as the act), was filed by the contesting respondents claiming 2/3rd share in the khata in dispute.3. to appreciate the facts and the controversy involved in the case, it would be helpful to notice the following pedigree. hulas rai |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | |zalim singh guru sahai sanehi lal shiv sahai lal | | | xsarjoo prasad krishna charan anandi prasad | alias bachi lalx |--------------------------| |raj bahadur (r.4) jang bahadur (r.5) rahas bihari |--------------|--------| raj narain (p.1) prem narain (p.2)4. the contesting respondents claim 2/3rd share on the ground that rahas bihari pre-deceased sarju prasad, hence, his 1/3rd share was inherited by them being nearest reversloner. this claim of the contesting respondents was contested by the petitioners on the ground that after the, death of sarju prasad an oral family settlement took place between the parties under which the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2004 (HC)

Arun Kumar and anr. Vs. Dev Shanker and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-07-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1447

prakash krishna, j.1. this is an appeal under section 299 of the indian succession act. the dispute in the present appeal is confined to the question of validity of will allegedly executed by smt. janak dulari in favour of the present appellants arun kumar and ballu. the contesting respondent is the daughter of smt. janak dulari.2. ram das had three wives. the name of the first wife is not relevant. his second wife was smt. ram pyari and third wife was smt. janak dulari. from ram pyari, the second wife a daughter smt. raj dulari was born. the present appellants are the sons of raj dulari.3. the present appellants filed a petition before the district judge, etawah for grant of probate of will dated 21st january, 1981 executed by smt. janak dulari in their favour.4. smt. janak dulari expired on 6th march, 1981 and an application for probate of will dated 21.1.1981 was filed on 23rd november, 1984. the notice of the probate proceedings was served on smt. sita devi (who died during pendency of proceedings before the court below) by refusal. the district judge, etawah by the order dated 25th may, 1985 probated the will of janak dulari in favour of the present appellants. it appears that in the intervening period after the death of smt. janak dulari and before the order of grant of probate there was criminal proceedings under section 145, cr.p.c. in between smt. sita devi and the present appellants with respect of the properties left by the deceased janak dulari. in the course of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2004 (HC)

Angoori Devi Vs. Pooran Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-26-2004

Reported in : AIR2004All273; 2004(2)AWC1312; (2004)2UPLBEC1847

tarun agarwala, j.1. the plaintiff filed a suit in the year 1978 for cancellation of a sale deed dated 24.9.1959 allegedly executed by her in favour of defendant no. 1 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. the plaintiff alleged that she is an illiterate villager and her husband died in 1957-58 when she was only 19 years old. defendant no. 1 is the son of the elder sister of the plaintiff. after the death of the husband, the plaintiff fell ill, and the parents of defendant no. 1 came to look after her and left defendant no. 1 with the plaintiff as there was no male member in the plaintiffs family. the parents of defendant no. 1 requested the plaintiff to execute a will in favour of defendant no. 1. this idea was relished by the plaintiff because at that time she was under the impression that she was dying. accordingly, the parents of defendant no. 1 brought her to the registrar's office where she placed her thumb impression on some papers which she thought was a will. the plaintiff further alleged that defendant no. 1 remained with her for two or three years. thereafter the behaviour of defendant no. 1 became unruly towards the plaintiff and the plaintiff sent the defendant no. 1 back to his parents place. in 1978, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no. 1 is negotiating the sale of the property with the defendant no. 2. the plaintiff enquired into the matter and then came to know that a sale deed dated 24.9.1959 had been allegedly executed by her in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2004 (HC)

Takan and anr. Vs. State

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-16-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ4258

ghanshyam dass, j.1. by means of the instant appeal the conviction order recorded on 21st may, 1980 by the court of the viith additional sessions judge shahjahanpur in sessions trial no. 113 of 1979 has been challenged by the accused persons namely takan and raghubir (father and the son). both of them have been awarded life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code.2. during the pendency of the instant appeal the accused takan has died with the result, his appeal was ordered to be abated. thus, we are concerned in the instant appeal with the accused rabhubir only.3. smt. vidyawati wife of beni ram is alleged to have been murdered by the accused in furtherance of their common intention on 16th april, 1978 at about 6.00 or 6.30 a.m. in village bari, police station kanth, district shahjahanpur, by causing fire-arm injuries to her.4. regarding the motive for the commission of the crime in question it is alleged that one chhote lal was the own uncle of the accused takan. the said chhote lal had no son. he had only one daughter named vidyawati (deceased). about ten years back, the said chhote lal had eloped with a lady of the village and started living somewhere in district farrukhabad. he had half share in the agricultural holdings and the remaining half was with the accused takan. prior to leaving the village bari, the said chhote lal had given his field for cultivation to accused takan. chhote lal died 5/6 years prior .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2004 (HC)

Gopal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-01-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)AWC321

orders.u. khan, j.1. in order to mitigate the hardship of both the parties which they are facing and are likely to face in future in pursuing unnecessary litigation in mutation proceedings and in order to expedite the decision of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to tahsildar (judicial) ballia to decide the mutation matter regarding mutation of the name over the agricultural land left behind by late mahabir tiwari resident of village jeerabasti, district ballia expeditiously. respondent no. 3 smt. prabhawati tiwari is widow of late mahabir tiwari and petitioner gopal tiwari is nephew of late mahabir tiwari. petitioner claims the right over the land left behind by the deceased on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased. the case was registered before tahsildar as case no. 667. any revision or appeal pending anywhere against any order passed in the said case by tahsildar shall stand consigned to record with effect from today. both the parties are directed to appear before tahsildar concerned on 1.12.2004 along with certified copy of this order. on the said date, the tahsildar must fix a date for hearing of the matter. both the parties shall file* their evidence before the tahsildar and tahsildar shall decide the matter within three months from today. till the final decision of the mutation application by the tahsildar in the revenue records the name of late mahabir tiwari shall be recorded/ continued to be recorded and both .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2004 (HC)

Jag NaraIn (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-06-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3066

s.k. singh, j.1. by means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment of the deputy director of consolidation, settlement officer of consolidation and that of the consolidation officer dated 21.8.1975, 7.11.1974 and 24.9.1974 (annexures-10, 9 and 8 respectively).2. proceedings are under section 9a (2) of u.p.c.h. act. there appears to be no dispute about certain facts and therefore, for the purpose of disposal, the facts in brief will be useful to be summarised.3. the dispute was initially in respect to the land comprised in khata nos. 133, 132, 94 and 111 situated in village begahani, district allahabad. now it appears that the land of khata no. 111 is not in dispute and as submitted by the learned counsel the dispute is confined only in respect to the land comprised in khata no. 133 which was recorded in the basic year record in the name of jag narain and buddhu and the land comprised in khata nos. 132 and 111 which was recorded in the basic year record in the name of jag narain, buddu and sat narain. for better understanding the pedigree which is admitted between the parties will also be useful to be reproduced here: sadho _____________________________________________|_____________________________________________ | | | parigan jagan nath sarvajeet | | | buddhu mahadeo satya narain jag narain (petitioner) (o.p. no. 7) ______________________________________________|____________________________________________ | | | raja ram ragho prasad mata .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2004 (HC)

NasruddIn Vs. Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-04-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1766

orderkamal kishore, j.1. this writ petition has been preferred for quashing the orders dated 10.12.1998 and 16.10.1999, passed by the then s.d.m., musafirkhana and additional commissioner, faizabad division, faizabad, which are annexures-3 and 4 respectively.2. i have heard arguments and have gone through the record.3. it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite-parties that the alternative remedies have already been availed of by the parties before the learned s.d.m. etc. in appeal, hence the present petition under article 226 of the constitution of india is not maintainable. on the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as alleged, that the alternative remedy in mutation orders is not barred by article 226 of the constitution of india. in support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ruling in puran singh v. board of revenue, u. p., allahabad and ors., 2004 (1) awc 853 : 2004 (22) lcd 494. this ruling is, however, not applicable to the facts of the case. in that ruling, the exception to the bar of the alternative remedy is mentioned :'exception has been categorized in cases where (i) the order is without jurisdiction, (ii) the rights and title already decided by competent court had been varied by mutation courts, and (iii) mutation directed not on basis of possession or simply on the basis of some title deed but after entering into debate of entitlement to succeed the property, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (HC)

Ram Sagar and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3508

devi prasad singh, j.1. heard sri d. c. jain, holding brief of sri h. s. sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri p. l. mishra for opposite party no. 2. none present for opposite party no. 3.2. according to the learned counsel for the parties plaintiff/opposite party no. 2 entered into an agreement with one ram krishna giri on 15.12.1979 for sale of certain agricultural land. however, the land was purchased by the defendant/petitioners from ram krishna giri on 6.10.1981. accordingly a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 2. the suit was decreed without effective service of notice on defendant, on 27.7.1982. the trial court while decreeing the suit directed for execution of sale deed in favour plaintiff by the decree dated 27.7.1982. defendant/petitioners filed application under order ix rule 13 of c.p.c. in september, 1982, for setting aside the ex parte decree and for decision on merit. the trial court had allowed the application by the judgment and order dated 27.5.1983 on payment of cost to the tune of rs. 25. the finding of the trial court is that a notice was affixed over the house of defendant/petitioners. at the time when the notice was affixed the defendant /petitioners were not available in the house and they were out of station. the report of process server states that the petitioners were out of station.3. feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.1983, passed by the trial court plaintiff/opposite party .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2004 (HC)

Sheo Pujan Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-02-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1265

krishna murari, j.1. this writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india is directed against the judgment of the deputy director of consolidation dated 21.7.1983 allowing the revision filed by respondent no. 2 and setting aside the order passed by the settlement officer consolidation as well as consolidation officer.2. the facts are that during consolidation proceedings chak nos. 210 and 161 were carved out in favour of one mangaru s/o tulsi. he died in 1975. after his death petitioner moved an application under section 12 of the u. p. consolidation of holdings act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for mutation of his name as a legal heir claiming himself to be the brother of deceased mangaru. two more applications were filed ; one by respondent no. 2 claiming mutation of her name as daughter of the deceased and another by one raghunath claiming himself to be the son of the brother of deceased. both the aforesaid applications were moved on 24.10.1975. undisputed pedegree of the parties is as follows :tulsi|-----------------------------------------| | | mangaru sheo pujari kartallu | |raj kumari married raghunathdaughter wife of and otherssakaldeep 3. the assistant consolidation officer vide order dated 31.10.1975 allowed the application of the petitioner while application moved respondent no. 2 and raghunath remained pending. subsequently, respondent no. 2 as well as raghunath moved applications dated 3.6.1976 and 22.6.1976 respectively for recalling .....

Tag this Judgment!

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