In a writ petition seeking execution of an order for eviction and return of possession, the Court found that the relief was already effected. The petition was dismissed as it was no longer pressed by the petitioner.
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. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24394 of 2019
Petitioner :- Prakash Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Pandey,Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amresh Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri S.K. Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No.5. The same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and Sri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7.
On 26.07.2019 following order was passed:-
"Heard.
Petitioner seeks the following relief:-
(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to execute/comply the order dated 20.5.2019 passed in Case No. 1342/2019 (computerized Case No. T201912070601342 (Prakash Chand Vs. Natthu Singh and others) U/s 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."
In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it has been stated that order under Section 131 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is appealable within 30 days. No appeal has been filed. The order, though final, has not been given effect to. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instructions in the matter.
Put up as fresh on 09.08.2019."
Today when the matter is taken up, instructions received by learned Standing Counsel was placed before the Court.
It is stated by learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions that in compliance of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Bisli Budaun/respondent No.3 dated 20.05.2019, proceedings were initiated by the revenue authorities. Thereafter, private respondent Nos.5 to 7 namely Nattu Singh, Dinesh and Biresh respectively were evicted from the plot in question and the possession of the aforesaid plots have already been provided to the petitioner.
In view of the same, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press this writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement made by learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner at Bar, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019/saqlain
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking mandate for execution of an order should be disposed of when parties state relief is no longer desired.
Prakash Chand
State Of U.P.
Natthu Singh
Dinesh
Biresh
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
