Allowed

Sukhvinder Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018WRIC/30572/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioners sought quashing of an eviction order. The High Court noted that respondents admitted the petitioners held a decree for specific performance and had executed a sale deed, yet failed to formally withdraw the eviction proceedings. Consequently, the Court quashed the eviction order.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 06.02.2008 directing eviction from the land in dispute.

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

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30572 of 2008

¶4

Petitioner :- Sukhvinder Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

¶6

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶7

Heard Sri M.L. Maurya holding brief of Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the order dated 06.02.2008 by which the respondents are seeking to evict the petitioners from the land in dispute.

¶9

It is stated that the petitioners through an agreement to sell dated 03.06.1996 entered with one Fakire Lal agreed to purchase the land in question for a sum of Rs.80,000/-, out of which Rs.75,000/- was also paid by the petitioners to Fakire Lal on 03.06.1997. Fakire Lal executed another agreement to sell in respect of the land mentioned herein below:

¶10

Sl.No.	Khasra Plot Nos.	Acres
1.	267M	0.022
2.	268M	0.101
3.	269M	0.181
4.	270	0.004
5	272M	0.175
6	273	0.111

¶11

¶12

When Fakire Lal declined to execute the sale deed the petitioners instituted a Suit No.640 of 2001 for specific performance, which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur on 31.08.2004. In pursuance of the said decree, sale deed was also executed by Fakire Lal on 31.10.2009 which fact is also admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

¶13

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that these facts were not within the knowledge of the Department when it was issued the impugned order but as soon as it came to know about the decree and the fact that the sale deed was executed on 31.10.2009 it has dropped the proceedings.

¶14

However, there is no averment in the counter affidavit that the impugned order dated 06.02.2008 has been withdrawn.

¶15

Therefore, on the facts of the case and the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, we quash the order dated 06.02.2008.

¶16

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.12.2018 N Tiwari

Sukhvinder Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhvinder Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and 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

Sita Ram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravish Kant Garg Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Saras and Company Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Panna Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laddan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj/ Thakur Ji Maharaj Mandir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others