Disposed

ravindra kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2018WRIC/12716/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition challenging orders regarding land allotment. Noting the lease had expired, the Court declined to express an opinion on merits but directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoband within four weeks; court trusts the authority will decide strictly in accordance with law.

ravindra kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12716 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri L.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶5

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur in Revision No.24 of 2017-18 (Ravindra Kumar vs. State and others) under Section 333 of UP ZA & LR Act, 1950 and the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur in Case No.06 of 2007-2008 (State vs. Kaliram and others) under Section 176-Ka (2) of UP ZA & LR Act, 1950.

¶6

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents as well as learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in submitting that initially the lease in question was granted in favour of the petitioner for agricultural purpose. As per provisions contained under Section 176-A of UP ZA & LR Act, 1950, the said right was accorded only for five years (asami) and admittedly the said period has already been expired. In such situation, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and as such, no interference is required in the matter.

¶7

Once the Court has declined to interfere in the matter, then learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that the petitioner is landless and poor agricultural labourer and in case there is any proceeding going on for allotment of the land in question to the landless Scheduled Caste category persons, then in such situation the claim of the petitioner would also be considered.

¶8

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶9

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶10

case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation along with certified copy of this order before the competent authority, which is stated to be respondent No. 3, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur, within a period of four weeks from today and the Court hopes and trusts that the respondent no.3 will consider the representation filed by the petitioner and decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 9.4.2018 RKP

ravindra kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

ravindra kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Saidain Vs Upziladhikari/Sub Divisional Magistrate and 6 Others

Nikhil Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mustafa Vs District Magistrate Allahabad and 2 Others

Ram Pyarey Vs State of U P and 5 Others