Partly allowed

Mukhdev Ram v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2019WRIC/19762/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an arbitrary and illegitimate order rejecting a restoration application under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 due to lack of reasoning. The matter was remitted to the Tehsildar to be decided via a reasoned order, and the petitioner was granted interim stay against dispossession of land.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11.04.2019 set aside; matter remitted for reasoned decision; interim stay against dispossession until decision on interim application.

Mukhdev Ram Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19762 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mukhdev Ram Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay,Narendra Deo Upadhayay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶2

Sri Narendra Deo Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 25.012.2018 in proceedings undertaken against the petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was ex parte to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a restoration application. The restoration application has been rejected by order dated 11.04.2019.

¶3

Sri Narendra Deo Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner calls attention to the order dated 11.04.2019 rejecting the application for restoration and contends that the order is a nonspeaking order which reflects non application of mind.

¶4

I see merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

The order dated 11.04.2019 is a cryptic order which does not in any manner reflect the application of mind. The order simply records that there is no merit in the restoration application and goes on dismiss the restoration application. The order being bereft of reasons is arbitrary and illegal. The order cannot stand. The order dated 11.04.2019 is set aside.

¶6

The matter is remitted to the court of Tehsildar, Kashimabad, District-Ghazipur.

¶7

The respondent No.2-Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, TehsilKashimabad, District-Ghazipur shall decide the restoration application of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

¶8

Sri Narendra Deo Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is being dispossessed from the land.

¶9

It is open to the petitioner to file an interim application within four weeks. In case such application is filed within the stipulated period of four weeks, the respondent No.2 shall forthwith pass an order on the same. Till the decision on the application for interim relief, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute.

¶10

The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 4.6.2019 Ashish Tripathi

Mukhdev Ram v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhdev Ram 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Syed Samreen (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Famous Bobin Works and Another Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and 3 Others

Simran @ Mahzabin and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others