Allowed

Kamal Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2019CRLP/1079/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by an elderly petitioner to quash orders directing land dispute proceedings. Court quashed impugned orders and directed fresh proceedings under Cr.P.C. with status quo maintained.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 04.02.2003 and 16.01.2003 quashed; SDM Dhampur directed to pass fresh order under S. 145/146 Cr.P.C. within one month; status quo maintained.

Kamal Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1079 of 2003

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S. Alim Shah,Ramesh Kumar Shukla,S.S. Shah,Smt. Farida Jamal Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Dr. V.K. Rai,Dushyant Kumar,P.K. Bisnoi,Sankatha Rai,V.K. Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA on behalf of State.

¶6

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 04.02.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Bijnor and also impugned order dated 16.01.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur, District Bijnor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 17.03.2001, the contesting opposite party preferred the revision in court of District and Sessions Judge, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7 Bijnor committed error of law apparent on the face of record and error of jurisdiction in setting aside the well considered judgment of the learned Magistrate and remanding the case to the District Magistrate Nagina in disregard to the well established principle of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. The petitioner is rustic illiterate old man aged about 90 years has got no experience of the court and the petitioner bonafide under the legal advice filed the revision in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor challenging the legality propriety and correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering reattach the property in utter disregard to the well established principle of law. The revision was finally heard by District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor who committed error of law apparent on the face of record and error of jurisdiction in dismissing the revision of the petitioner on the erroneous ground; that the revision of the petitioner was not maintainable.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the material on record order dated 16.01.2003 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur District Bijnor is hereby quashed and the S.D.M. Dhampur is directed to pass a fresh order in Case No. 28 of 2002, under section 145/146 Cr.P.C., Village Alampur Gawda, Police Station Afjalgarh, District Dhampur, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either the parties, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶9

Parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date.

¶10

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Arti

Kamal Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar v. State of U.P. and 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

Smt. Sagira and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Another

Devendra Kumar Garg Vs State of U.P. Thru Home Secy. and Another

Mislawati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Giri Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Goel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others