Disposed

Jarnail Singh v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2018WRIC/11391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the refusal to construct a boundary wall on acquired land, the court directed the Commissioner to complete an enquiry and pass an order within two months before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner, Meerut Division to pass an appropriate order on the construction of the boundary wall expeditiously within two months.

Jarnail Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11391 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jarnail Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Saran Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

The petitioner alleges that the respondent New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Gautambudh Nagar is not permitting the petitioner to construct a boundary wall in Khasra No.574/2 admeasuring 380 Sq.mt situate in Revenue Village, Ghejatilaptbad Paragana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar.

¶6

The submission is that earlier demarcation was carried out since there was a dispute as to whether this particular piece of land had been acquired for NOIDA or not but despite the demarcation having been carried out, NOIDA is not permitting the petitioner to raise the boundary wall.

¶7

Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing for the NOIDA has placed before the Court, a communication dated March 2018 sent by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to the District Magistrate Gautambudh Nagar asking the said Officer to get an enquiry conducted by the ADM (Adminstration) Gautambudh Nagar and to place the report before him within one month. This letter was sent in response to the communication dated 23 March 2018 sent by NOIDA. Learned counsel states that orders regarding construction of the boundary wall shall be passed on the basis of the report.

¶8

It is pointed out by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for J.P. Infratech Limited that for some portion of the land was provided to it by NOIDA and, therefore, the Commissioner may also hear the said Company before passing the order.

¶9

In this view of the matter, when the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut has ordered for an enquiry it is considered appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut to pass an appropriate order expeditiously and preferably within two months from today.

¶10

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 18.4.2018 Junaid

¶12

(Dilip Gupta,J)

¶13

(Neeraj Tiwari,J)

Jarnail Singh v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarnail Singh v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rama Shankar Gaur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rajrani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umar Daraj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajit Ram Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Vishwanath Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumat Pal Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others