REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GANGA PRASAD Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LAZARUS ESTATES LTD. V. BEASLEY [REFERRED TO]
LAZARUS ESTATES LTD. V. BEASLEY [REFERRED TO]
VIMLA VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
SATYA VS. TEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
MAHBOOB SAHAB VS. SYED ISMAIL [REFERRED TO]
ASHARFI LAL VS. KOILI DEADBYLRS [REFERRED TO]
GOWRISHANKAR VS. JOSHI AMBA SHANKAR FAMILY TRUST [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK VS. SATYAM FIBRES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN DEEN VS. PREETI LAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM PREETI YADAV VS. U P BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA SINGH VS. SAVITRI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
VICE CHAIRMAN KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN VS. GIRDHARILAL YADAV [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF ENGINEER M S E B VS. SURESH RAGHUNATH BHOKARE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A P VS. T SURYACHANDRA RAO [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR DUTT VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
LILLY KUTTY VS. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAIN PARASURAMPURIA VS. PUSHPA DEVI SARAF [REFERRED TO]
A V PAPAYYA SASTRY VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKAR SADBHA SHIVARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the private respondents.

(2.) By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged:

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 26/10/1964, the land of tenure holder Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey was declared surplus under the provisions of the Act, 1960. The land was entered in the name of Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey which is evident from the Khatauni and after about six years on 31/8/1970, out of surplus land of Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey plot No. 521/1.70 acres was allotted to Kishore S/o Ram Karan being a landless labourer, it is pertinent to point out that over the patta document Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) @ Nanhe Lal Lekhpal was a witness and on the basis of patta name of Kishore was entered in the khatauni and the mutation register prepared under Rule 24.

Click here to view full judgment.

GANGA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address