Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2019CRLP/23245/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed to enforce an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 31.12.2018 regarding possession of a property. The Court directed the Magistrate to take over possession within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 (Sub Divisional Magistrate) to take over possession of the property within two months.

Biraju Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23245 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Biraju Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arif Ikbal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Arif Ikbal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to compliance the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehnagar, District Azamgarh over the property in question in Case No. 16 of 2018 under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. (Birju vs. Lalti Devi) P.S. Mehnagar, District-Azamgarh.

¶8

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that on 11.06.2014, a sale deed was executed by the husband of respondent no.4 in favour of the petitioner. After the death of husband of the respondent no.4, she requested the petitioner to permit her to use the property in question for purpose of function after death for which the key of premises of the alleged property was given to the respondent no.4. Subsequently, after the said programme, the respondent no.4 refused to return the key of property in question and she was not ready to vacate the premises in question. For redressing of grievances, an application was moved before the respondent no.2 requesting him to get the premises in question vacated. On 22.10.2018, the respondent no.2 accepted the application of the petitioner and registered a case, as Case No. 16 of 2018, under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. and issued noticed to respondent no.4. Thereafter, on 31.12.2018, after hearing both the parities, the impugned order was passed directing the authorities concerned to get the premises in question vacated from the respondent no.4 and hand over the possession of the same to the petitioner. In spite of order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the respondent no.2., no such steps have been taken for compliance of the impugned order. Subsequently, the petitioner has again given an application dated 22.06.2018 before the respondent no.2 for redressing of his grievances but nothing has been done.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Mehnagar, DistrictAzamgarh to look into the matter and also take necessary action in this regard for taking over possession of the property in question, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months, in case, certified copy of this order has given within a period of two weeks from today.

¶10

Order Date :- 21.11.2019 JK Yadav

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biraju 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

Pappu and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Aakim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Sahani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Renu Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deva @ Raina @ Devdutt Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ishaq Mohd Vs State of U.P. and Another