Disposed

Murari Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018WRIC/9960/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging land acquisition orders. Observing that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit to agitate his claim for injunction, the court directed the lower court to decide the pending injunction application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; respondent directed to decide petitioner's injunction application in the suit within three months.

Murari Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9960 of 2018 Petitioner :- Murari Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kumar,Ganga Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gram Sabha.

¶5

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Chief Revenue Officer/Additional Collector, Varanasi in Civil Revision No. 46/47 of 2018 and the impugned order dated 28.08.2017, passed by Assistant Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Judicial, Sadar Varanasi in Case No. T-201114701176/881 of 2012, under Section 122B-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submits that as per the Revenue Records that plot no. 395 is a big plot and the same has been divided into five plots upon which in plot no. 395/1 area 1.37 has been recorded as Bheeta land and the remaining area i.e. plot nos. 395/2, 395/3, 395/4 and 395/5 are recorded as Bachat Chak Marg and Abadi land and the petitioner's house is located over the plot no. 395/2 and as such the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Section 122-B are wholly arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category and his house had already existing more than 10 years ago from the date issuing the notices 49-A, hence, the petitioner is entitled to got benefit of Section 122--C(3)(iii)(b) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

¶7

At the very outset, learned Standing has raised objection that so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, he has already filed a suit and the same is pending consideration.

¶8

Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order passed on 27.03.2018 in Writ-C No. 10942 of 2018, wherein the following order has been passed :-

¶9

"Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava for respondent no.4 and Sri Rajesh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel.

¶10

This writ petition is preferred against the orders dated 19.4.2017 and 14.12.2017 ejecting the petitioner under Section 122 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession over Gata no.70 has no concern with the disputed plot, ends of justice would be met if a fresh direction is issued to the authority concerned to carry out fresh spot inspection and demarcation, subject to objections, if any, by the petitioners.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for respondent no.4 have no objection.

¶13

This writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority concern to carry out fresh spot inspection and demarcation of the plot in question, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months and in the event the report is adverse to the petitioner, he shall be given an opportunity to prefer objections/evidence, if any.

¶14

The orders dated 19.4.2017 and 14.12.2017 shall abide the fresh order so passed by the competent authority concerned."

¶15

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in case the respondent is disputing the rights over the plot in question on the ground that the same is public utility or pond / Bheeta land and the revenue record is clear to the extent that plot no. 395 is a big chak of land and the same has been demarcated into five segments, then the demarcation of land is required.

¶16

In view of the above, the Court is of the considered opinion that in case petitioner claims his right over the plot in question and for the same he has already filed suit before the court below, then the petitioner has every right to agitate his claim for injunction in the suit proceeding.

¶17

Consequently with the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of asking respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the injunction application at the earliest, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.4.2018 sailesh

Murari Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karunendra Sachan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yadav Pooja Kamala Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akanksha Solanki Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Prasad Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs Gaon Sabha Bangaon, Pargana Ghisuva and 2 Others

Badan Singh Vs Commissioner Agra and 18 Others