Dismissed

Ninnu Ram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2018CRLP/5769/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court through a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition dismissed the challenge to orders passed by a Pargana Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge. The Court upheld the direction to remove an unlawful obstruction on a public passage, finding no infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent factual findings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim standi order vacated.

Ninnu Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5769 of 2002

¶3

Petitioner :- Ninnu Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Bhushan Paul Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Nasiruzzan

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA. perused the record.

¶6

This writ petition has been preferred by Ninnu Ram against State and Sompal Singh challenging orders dated 9.12.1996, 31.3.1998, 5.8.1999 passed by Pargana Magistrate, Sadar, Firozabad and revisional order dated 3.8.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad.

¶7

Facts of the case are that Sompal Singh, opposite party No.2 submitted an application on 26.11.1996 before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Firozabad under Section 133 Cr.P.C. for removal of boundary being made by petitioner Ninnu Ram. On the report of S.O., Matsaina dated 16.12.1996, Pargana Magistrate, Sadar Firozabd passed preliminary order dated 19.12.1996 directing and petitioner to remove the boundary wall(Kharanja boundary) and notice was issued. Later on, objection was filed on 24.2.1997 and after hearing both the parties, final order was passed on 31.3.1998. Against that order, Criminal Revision No. 87/98 was filed and that was decided by Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.3, Firozabad vide order dated 3.8.2002. Hence this revision.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that orders were passed against the fact and law and are illegal, perverse and without application of mind.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that orders impugned are just, illegal and suffer from no infirmity.

¶10

From perusal of record, it appears that lower Court has given concurrent finding of facts. It also transpires from the record that after consideration of 'paimaish of plot which the petitioner purchased for consideration of Rs.4000/-and after hearing both the parties, Pargana Magistrate Sadar, Firozabad found that petitioner had started making boundary on the public passage, and thereafter directed him to remove the construction vide

¶11

order dated 31.3.1998. In this context Section 133(1)(a) Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-

¶12

"133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance. (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this of behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers-

¶13

(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or..."

¶14

According to Section 133(1) (a) Cr.P.C. Magistrate is empowered to direct for removal of unlawful obstruction or nuisance from the public place, from any way, river or channel. In the present case, after considering the whole evidence produced by both parties, impugned orders were passed. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned. Both the lower Courts have given concurrent finding on fact and view taken by the lower Court is possible view. No interference is called for.

¶15

The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶16

order Date :- 6.9.2018 P.P.

Ninnu Ram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ninnu Ram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Swami Nath Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bunty Vs State of U.P.

Faraz Vs State of U.P.

Sintoo Singh Vs State of U.P.