Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 109 of 1958‑59, decided on 9th September 1959.
para. 15‑Joint Hindu family ‑ Documents produced showing property to be ancestral‑No revenue entry showing petitioner as Manager of joint Hindu family‑Order rejecting request for retention of land, not interfered.
Rochi Ram for Petitioner.
This is, a revision filed against an order, dated the 13th of July 1959, passed by Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar, who had allowed the petitioner to retain only 36 acres and 12 ghuntas of land and had rejected his request in respect of other area entered in his Forms LC‑I and LC‑II.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner put in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II. On examination of the records, it transpired that his name did not appear in the revenue records. It was held by the Deputy Land Commissioner that the question of his retaining area did not arise. The petitioner went in appeal to the Land Commissioner but his appeal was rejected. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He wished me to rely on documents which only show the nature of the property to be ancestral. There is no revenue entry which 7 would show the petitioner as Manager of the joint Hindu family. In these circumstances, no interference is called for. The revision fails and is rejected hereby.
S. Q. Revision rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer