Disposed

Harvansh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2019WRIC/10713/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought direction to decide his representation for land regularization. The court disposed of the petition by directing the authorities to consider the representation expeditiously within three months, without adjudicating the claim on merit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to decide petitioner's representation dated 3.7.2018 expeditiously within three months.

Harvansh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10713 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Harvansh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and the learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 3.

¶6

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 3.7.2018 for regularization of his abadi land of Khasra No. 371 area 4210 sq. mt. situated in Village Sakipur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari District Gautam Budh Nagar under the provisions of Greater Noida Industrial Development Rural abadi Sites (Management and Regularization) (First Amend) Regulation, 2015. According to the petitioner he is the recorded tenure holder of the land in question as per the Khatauni, copy of which has been filed at page 29 of the writ petition.

¶7

No useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶8

This writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent no 2-Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Plot No. 1 Knowledge ParkIV Greater Noida City, District Gautam Budh Nagar to decide the petitioner's representation dated 3.7.2018, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶9

Alongwith the representation the petitioner shall also provide a copy of his representation dated 3.7.2018 to the respondent no. 2.

¶10

It is made clear that the court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.

¶11

Order Date :- 29.3.2019 o.k.

Harvansh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvansh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sudhir Kaushik and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Chief Secry. and 3 Others

Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalta and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lalta and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kawar Sen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others