The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging an act of Zila Panchayat concerning property allotment. The court held that an alleged oral sub-allotment agreement is not legally enforceable, declining to interfere as the petitioner is pursuing a civil suit.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order quashed; no interference in the matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20820 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Vyas Respondent :- State of U.P. and 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.S. Chauhan, Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case.
Petitioner claims to be a sub allottee of one Suresh Chand Gupta. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta happens to be the original lessee of the shop in question, got constructed by him at the instance of some order passed by Zila Panchayat. Subsequently, Zila Panchayat has cancelled the lease and that matter has come to be litigated and questioned as an actionable claim by Shri Suresh Chand Gupta by Original Suit No. 428 of 2012. The petitioner claims to be a sub-allottee at the instance of Suresh Chand Gupta in the shops constructed. The petitioner submits that there was though not any written agreement but some sort of oral tripartite agreement in his favour.
An oral agreement is not enforceable in law. It is only a written agreement which is enforcible in law and can result in an actionable claim. However, the petitioner submits that he has already instituted a suit bearing Original Suit No. 128 of 2019 (Rajesh Kumar Vyas Vs. Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Jhansi) against Zila Panchayat and is still pending consideration before Small Cause Court.
In view of the above, we decline to interfere in the matter.
It is left open for the petitioner to get his suit connected with that of O.S. No. 428 of 2012 and also may suitably get his suit amended if he so desires for getting appropriate relief.
Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order is quashed.
Order Date :- 19.11.2019 LBY
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can interfere in a dispute involving an alleged oral sub-allotment where enforcement of an oral agreement is legally unenforceable.
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed when the petitioner has an institutionalized civil suit pending.
Rajesh Kumar Vyas
State of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
