कि लोकपाल का आदेश चलेगा या संविधान चलेगा. जब संविधान सर्वोपरि है तो अनुच्छेद ३९(ग) को समाप्त करने की बात क्यों नहीं करते?
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD.
CIVIL MISC. WRIT
PETITION NO. 9672 OF 1988
Shiv Ashrey Tiwari
and others ..........Petitioners
Ist . Addl.
District Judge, Gorakhpur and others....Respdts.
THE JOINT REGISTRAR, DT. 28.7.1989
Hon. Ravi S. Dhavan,J.
In compliance of your
Lordship’s order, I checked annexure No. RA-5 and RA-6 on the record of writ
Petition No. 9672/88 Sheo Asrey Tewari & anothers Vs. I Addl. District
Judge & another in respect of plot no. 927 of village Turkamanpur Tappa
Kasba Pargana Haveli Sadar Gorkhpur of the year 1323 fasli and 1295 fasli and
found that conversation of the land from bigha to acres is correct.
In Khasra of village Turkmanpur(Collector’s record) of
1322 fasli, there are two sets of plots, against Plot no. 927, one set consists
of sub -plot no,881, 882, 883 and 888. Another set consists of sub plot no.
875-876-877 and 878. In column no. 3 total area is written to be. 7.32 acre.
But in Fard Mutabiqat (Comparative table) of 1322 fasli(Lekhpsl’s record) of
village Turkmanpur plot no. 927 consists of sub-plots 881, 882,883,884,885,
875, 876, 877, 878 and 886. Thus, there addition of plot nos. 884 ,885 after
plot no. 888 and 886 after plot no. 878 in Lekhpal’s record and both the
records do not tally.
Against the original entry of plot no. 878, figure ‘8’was
added on left side to make it read as ‘887’. Thereafter figure ‘8’ on the left
side of original figure was cut. This gives impression that it can be read as
878 and 887 both. At page 99, there are cutting but no official has signed on
As directed by your Lordship,
Urdu, Hindi and English transliteration of the relevant records has been done,
which is attached herewith for your Lordship’s kind perusal.
Submitted for kind perusal and
Joint Registrar ©
Sd. Illegible 3.9.90
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 9672
Shiv Ashrey Tiwari and others
Ist . Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others....Respdts.
HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD
Hon: Ravi S. Dhavan
The petitioner No. 2
in person, Mr. G.L. Tripathi Standing Counsel on behalf of state of U.P. Mr. S.
Mandyan, Advocate for Respondent No. 4, holding the brief of Mr. B.D. Mandhyan,
Advocate, Mr. K.B. Mathur, Advocate otherwise standing counsel, U.P. for
Respondent No. 5.
The petitioner No. 2
has filed an affidavit with eleven annexures, which with the exception of one
refer to the land records, otherwise in the possession of the district
administration i.e. the State. A copy of this affidavit has already been
delivered to counsel for the parties.
All the Respondents
have jointly and unanimously prayed and requested the court that the matter be
adjourned for today as they feel that the matter needs to be discussed with the
Collector and District Magistrate, Gorakhpur.
The reason for short adjournment was explained by learned counsel aforesaid.
Regard being had to the record as of date, including certified copies of land
records filed today, a short adjournment over the week-end was desired to
obtain instructions. It
was further contended that in consultation with the Collector/ District
Magistrate party Respondents would seek instructions to suggest a proposal if
another tract of land contiguous to that in the possession of petitioner, as of
date, can be made available, subject to such orders as may be passed by this
court, so that the interest of all parties can be protected. The request for
adjournment, to let the Collector and District Magistrate consider the matter
is not unreasonable. The matter is thus adjourned to be listed on August 18, 1989, as August
15 and 17 are public holidays.
After the aforesaid
order was passed and at the rising of the court, Mr. B.D. Mandhyan, Advocate
entered appearance to insist that the matter be taken up as unlisted tomorrow.
The Court requested learned counsel to be briefed by his colleagues in this
case on the proceedings as are on record, during his absence, as the request
for adjournment may ultimately see a solution and end litigation. Learned
counsel insisted that the District Magistrate Gorakhpur has nothing to do with
the matter and that he must have his say.
As the matter cannot
proceed beyond court hours in any case, place as unlisted tomorrow so that Mr.
B.D. Mandhyan, Advocate, may have his say on whatever he contends. Let the
record be before the court.
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.