Disposed

Seeta Ram and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2019WRIB/3169/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging a reference under U.P. Co-Operative Housing Act by refusing immediate relief. Petitioners were permitted to file detailed objections before the reference authority within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to submit detailed objections before Respondent No. 2 within three weeks; Respondent No. 2 to decide within four months.

Seeta Ram and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3169 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Seeta Ram And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3. Sri R. C. Upadhyay, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4.

¶7

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶8

" (i) a writ in nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceeding of case No.D201815060000359 of 2018, under section 48(3) U.P.C.H. Act (State of U.P. Vs. Sampatti and others) pending before the respondent No.02/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Azamgarh village Abhaypur, Pargana Atraulia, Tehsil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh. "

¶9

It appears from perusal of the record that on an application moved by the private persons a reference has been made by the respondent no.2 in respect of the land in question. On the said reference notices were issued by the respondent no.2 to the present petitioners on 27.2.2018, copy of which is appended as annexure 2 to the writ petition. Various arguments were made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the reference made by the respondent no.2 is not at all maintainable.

¶10

In view of the same court is of the opinion that no relief could be granted to the petitioners in so far as the present writ petition is concerned.

¶11

Without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioners to submit their objections in detail before the respondent no.2 along with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such an objection is preferred by the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.2 will decide the same within a period of four months thereafter, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.12.2019

¶12

Pramod Tripathi

Seeta Ram and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeta Ram and 8 Others 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

Mahadeo Vs D.D.C.

Radhey Shyam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunahari Lal and Another Vs Bhagwan Devi and 7 Others

Phoolwati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhullan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shrikant Mishra Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation and 8 Others