Allowed

Pradeep Kumar and Others v. Commissioner Gorakhpur Region and Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018WRIC/36816/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed setting aside order dismissing appeal on grounds of non-impleadment; directed lower court to decide merit after hearing petitioners and State Government maintaining status quo on possession.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.9.1995 set aside; appeal to be decided after hearing State Government; status quo on possession maintained.

Pradeep Kumar and Others Vs Commissioner Gorakhpur… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36816 of 1995

¶3

Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar & Others Respondent :- Commissioner,Gorakhpur Region & Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rg Padia,Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.11.1995 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners have not impleaded the other respondents, who were parties to the proceeding in the court below.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel has stated that in the counter specific averment has been made that in the ceiling proceedings legal heirs were proposed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority declaring the land of Madhav Prasad as surplus.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners were a subsequent purchaser of the land and after purchasing the land from the recorded owner of the land, the land was declared as surplus, which was challenged by the petitioners in section 32 of the U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 which clearly provided that the State Government shall be a party to every proceeding under the provisions of this Act. The relief sought in this appeal filed by

¶10

the petitioner is that the land, which has been declared as surplus, is liable to be dismissed and the appeal deserves to be allowed. The said averment only relates to the State Government, who have declared the land to be excess of the ceiling limits which is only the State Government is a necessary and appropriate party in the appeal filed by the petitioners. The court below was in error in passing the impugned order dated 27.11.1995 while dismissing the appeal. It was only the State Government which was necessary and a proper party in the appeal and the appeal ought to have been heard on merits.

¶11

In view of the findings recorded above, the order dated 27.9.1995 is set aside. The court below is directed to decide the appeal after hearing the petitioners as well as the State Government. It is clarified that this Court has not recorded any findings on merits of the appeal, which will be decided on its its own merits in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the production of a certified copy of this order. Till the decision of the appeal the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to possession as on today.

¶12

The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.12.2018 Puspendra

Pradeep Kumar and Others v. Commissioner Gorakhpur Region and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar and Others v. Commissioner Gorakhpur Region 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

Air Gasses Mazdoor Sangh Vs Indian Air Gasses Ltd. and Others

M/S Siel Ltd. Vs Dy. Labour Commissioner and Another

Maheen and Others Vs the Addl. Commissioner Meerut and Others

Ramji Rai Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Mohit Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajwati Vs State of U P and 3 Others