Dismissed

Lakhpati Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2019WRIC/12380/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a beneficiary of a housing welfare scheme in Uttar Pradesh, approached the High Court alleging her flat lock was changed due to fabrication. The court, relying on Standing Counsel's report of factual disputes regarding possession and document fabrication, held that judicial time should not be wasted in such controversies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to approach the District Magistrate or other forums if aggrieved by the subsequent order.

Lakhpati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12380 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Lakhpati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma,Suved Kumar Sharma

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

The petitioner claims that she is a lady and had applied for a flat in Manyavar Kashi Ramji Sahari Gareeb Avas Yojana Dwitiya Charan, Varanasi. It is stated that a flat was allotted to her, a copy of the allotment order is on the record.

¶7

Her grievance is that possession of the said Flat No.12, Block No.84 was given to her and she started residing therein. In the meantime some fabrication has been committed by the other lady in collusion with the clerk of the District Magistrate and a lock has been put on her flat. It is averred in the writ petition that she has made an application before the District Magistrate on 14.11.2018 but no action has been taken. Since the petitioner belongs to marginal and weaker section of the Society, we asked the learned standing counsel to seek the instruction. Learned standing counsel has passed on the instruction to us, which is taken on record.

¶8

In the instruction, it is stated that the petitioner was never given possession of the accommodation since the address in her application form is different and after an inquiry, it was found that the petitioner is in fact was not living on the address, which she has mentioned, i.e., S8/22, Ardali Bazar, Varanasi. Hence, her allotment order was cancelled and the second eligible candidate Smt. Jadawati Devi has been allotted the said accommodation.

¶9

We have heard learned council for the petitioner and Sri Hari Keshav, learned standing counsel.

¶10

We are of the view that in such welfare scheme several lakhs flats have been constructed in all over the Uttar Pradesh. In such type of dispute, the precious judicial time of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be wasted as since from the instruction there is a serious dispute about the fabrication of the documents and the factual dispute, hence we do not find it a fit case to interfere in such a controversy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Recently the Supreme Court has observed, that the High Court should not interfere in the small and pity matters and the Court should not deal with such frivolous litigation with a firm hands.

¶12

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue her representation which she has made before the District Magistrate, which is on the record as Annexure 6 to the writ petition.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate to give an opportunity to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, she may approach the consumer forum or any other remedy which is available to her.

¶14

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.5.2019 AKJ

Lakhpati Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhpati Devi 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

siyawati Vs state of u.p. and 3 others

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Babu Singh Vidhyalaya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Prem Chand Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajeet Singh Vs Lali

Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another