Partly allowed

Jai Singh and 27 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2019WRIC/19710/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the High Court held that the order rejecting the recall application dated 06.05.2019 was arbitrary, illegal and failed to apply mind to delay grounds. It was quashed and remitted for reasoned consideration within three months. Status quo was maintained for one month.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 06.05.2019; Remitted the matter for reasoned consideration within three months; Maintained status quo for one month; Ordered Trial Court to decide interim relief independently

Jai Singh and 27 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19710 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jai Singh And 27 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vatsala Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manu Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶5

In the proceedings taken out under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the Pattas of the petitioners were cancelled by order dated 28.09.2017.

¶6

It is contended by Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings and the order dated 28.09.2017 were exparte to the petitioners. The petitioners moved a recall application. By the order dated 06.05.2019 the recall application has been rejected.

¶7

The order rejecting the recall application dated 06.05.2019 records that the counsel for the applicants did not make any submissions nor adduce evidence on the merits of the case. He did not advance any persuasive argument on the delay condonation application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occasion to canvass arguments on merits and to tender evidence would rise only after the recall application was allowed. Further she calls attention to Section 5 application which discloses reasons for delay in institution of the recall application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 06.05.2019 is perverse inasmuch as it does not consider any of the grounds for the delay mentioned in Section 5 application. The findings are vague.

¶10

On the face of the record the aforesaid contentions have merit.

¶11

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

¶12

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being decided finally.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The order dated 06.05.2019 on the face of the record self destructs since there is no application of mind. No finding has been returned in regard to the Section 5 application even though specific grounds for condonation of delay have been taken in the said application. Further the order assailed in the writ petition dated 06.05.2019 also does not record any reasons for rejecting the recall application filed by the petitioners on the premise that the earlier order dated 28.09.2017 was an exparte order.

¶15

The order dated 06.05.2019 cannot be sustained. The order dated 06.05.2019 is arbitrary and illegal. The order dated 06.05.2019 is quashed.

¶16

The matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities to consider the recall application along with application for condonation of delay by a reasoned and speaking order reflecting due application of mind on the grounds raised in the recall application as well as the application for condonation of delay. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after hearing all necessary parties.

¶17

Since the petitioners claim that they have been inducted in possession on the foot of the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat, status quo shall be maintained between the parties for a period of one month.

¶18

The applicants shall file an application for interim relief before the learned Trial Court within a period of one month. The learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders on the interim relief application independently without being influenced by the observations made in the earlier part of the writ petition, within one month.

¶19

The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.6.2019 Pravin

Jai Singh and 27 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Singh and 27 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

Prem Prakash Anjor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyamal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahbub Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Priya Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Chandana Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others