Disposed

Kanchi Singh and 16 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2018WRIC/9951/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ jurisdiction to quash an order finalizing proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and direct non-interference with land possession. The Court held that a statutory revision remedy under Section 210 exists, directing the petitioners to approach the Revisional Authority with a stay application within three weeks, while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file Revision and Stay Application before Revisional Authority within three weeks; status quo maintained pending disposal.

Kanchi Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9951 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kanchi Singh And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Vikash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for State respondents and Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for third respondents.

¶4

Petitioners are before this Court with the request to quash the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by SubDivisional Officer, Khurja, Buland Shahar wherein on the complaint of Gram Pradhan, the proceeding under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been finalized. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the plot/land in dispute.

¶5

It appears that the petitioners have got Assami Patta of the land mentioned in paragraph four of the writ petition and are in possession over the said land. The proceedings under Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 has been initiated by Khan Chandra and other similarly situated incumbents and the same was dismissed by the S.D.O. Khurja on 27.06.1958. Aggrieved with the same, Khan Chandra and others filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 08.07.1958. The said appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut on 24.08.1959. Thereafter the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration before the S.D.O. Khurja under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.1962. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut which was allowed vide order dated 23.07.1962. Subsequently, the State Government filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide judgement and order dated 31.10.1963. It is claimed that thereafter no action has been taken by the respondent authorities for execution of the said order and on the complaint of Gram Pradhan dated 28.08.2017, the Sub Divisional Officer has straightway passed the

¶6

order impugned and as such, the petitioners are before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case the Second Appeal filed by the State Government was allowed by the Board of Revenue on 31.10.1963, then the same ought to have been executed by the Authorities concerned within one year period and at no point of time any Execution Case has been filed by the respondents and in between 55 years period has passed but petitioner has never been uprooted from the land in question and even in the revenue records, the name of petitioners have been mentioned with transferable rights and as such, it is urged that at this belated stage, after lapse of more than 55 years period, the petitioners cannot be uprooted from the land in question.

¶8

On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri M.N. Singh, Advocate, who represents the Land Management Committee submits that in view of the provisions contained under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioners have got efficacious alternative remedy to file Revision against the order impugned and as such, there is no reason or occasion to intervene in the matter.

¶9

Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that once against the order impugned, alternate remedy of Revision has been provided under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, then the same shall be availed by the petitioners instead of rushing to this Court and in this backdrop, it is directed that in case any such Revision has been filed by the petitioners alongwith Stay Application within three weeks' period from today, this Court hopes and trust that the Revisional Authority would proceed to decide the injunction/stay application within a period of further three months. It is made clear that till the disposal of the aforesaid Stay Application, the parties shall maintain status quo as of today on the spot.

¶10

With these, Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 4.4.2018 A. Pandey

Kanchi Singh and 16 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchi Singh and 16 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Bhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Paramsheela Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anukh Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rameshari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others