Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn by the petitioner after arguments.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34065 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Dwivedi,Vidya Kant Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Vidya Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
"(I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the recovery certificate dated 04.10.1988, proceeding held by Respondent No.4 (Annexure No.8 to this writ petition)
(II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing to the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to release the Arazi No.354 measuring Area 0.6400 Hectare situated in Village Banjari, Pargana-Bhadohi, TehsilAurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi of the petitioner who has been wrongly and illegally auctioned by the Tehsil authorities.
(III) A writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing to the respondent no.2 to enquire the fresh and proper investigation against the forged auction proceeding held by Respondent No.4 against the non mortgaged property of petitioner of Arazi No.354 measuring Area 0.640 Hectare situated in Mauja Banjari, Tehsil Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.
(IV) A writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing to the Respondent No.2 to decide the representation/application dated 24.09.2018 which is pending before him (Annexure No.12 to this writ petition)"
Learned Standing Counsel submits that this is a frivolous writ petition and deserves to be dismissed with costs, inasmuch as, the petitioner has no right or title to the disputed property which was auctioned in favour of one Ram Awadh in an auction on 01.09.1991 and the sale certificate was issued in the year 1997. Even the impugned recovery certificate is not against the petitioner but against one Sri Sankatha Prasad who was erstwhile owner of the disputed property which was sold in auction.
After the argument was heard at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition and as such, it may be dismissed as withdrawn.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 9.10.2018 Nitin Verma
Bhola Nath
State Of U.P.
B. Amit Sthalekar
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
