Disposed

Chandi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018WRIC/38172/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order initiating proceedings to delete the petitioner's name from the record for alleged encroachment, observing that the petitioner can defend himself in the subsequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

None; petition disposed. Observation directed for opportunity of hearing in subsequent deletion proceedings.

Chandi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38172 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Chandi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶6

Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned order dated 8.9.2018 (Annexure No. 3) respondent no. 2.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not interfere petitioner Gata No. 235/2 area 0.1150 hec. situated in Village Atus, Tehsil Kirawali, District Agra.

¶9

(iii) ....."

¶10

On a complaint made against the petitioner that he has encroached upon the Khasra No. 235/1 area 588 sq. mts., which is a banzar land and although he was allotted Khasra No. 235/2 area 0.1150 hectares he is not in possession and he is not doing any agricultural activity on the aforesaid plot. After verification it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon the banzar land Khasra No. 235/1 area 588 sq. mts. and encroachment was directed to be removed. While passing the order an observation has been made that the petitioner is not in possession of the area of Khasra No. 235/2 area 0.1150 hectares, therefore, his name may be deleted from the record by the proceedings that may be initiated.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order is incorrect as he has never been afforded any opportunity of hearing. Submission is that the petitioner has no concern with Khasra No. 235/1 and he is only concerned with Khasra No. 235/2 area 0.1150 hectares and prayer is that since this order was passed for initiating proceedings for deleting his name, opportunity of hearing is liable to be given.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

¶13

On perusal of record I find that insofar as Khasra No. 235/2 is

¶14

concerned, a direction has been given for initiating proceedings for deletion of name of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶15

In such view of the matter, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending as the petitioner can suitably defend himself in such proceedings.

¶16

Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of with an observation that while proceedings against the petitioner for deletion of his name from record he shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing so that he may defend his case on merits.

¶17

Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the learned Standing Counsel within a week for communication to the authorities concerned.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.11.2018 Lalit Shukla

Chandi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ram Lawat Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Shailendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others