Dismissed

Indradev v. State of U.P. Thru the Additional District and Sess. Judge

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019WRIC/24684/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging findings of fact regarding land ownership and possession. The Court noted the petitioner failed to file a certified copy of the 1991 order but relied on the lower court's finding that compromise papers lacked signatures and were unreliable, concluding factual findings cannot be interfered under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, quashing the challenge to the lower court's judgment and order.

Indradev Vs State of U.P. Thru the Additional District… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24684 of 2003 Petitioner :- Indradev Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Additional District And Sess. Judge Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Yash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Srivastava

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

¶5

" (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 24.4.03, 30.9.91 and 25.9.91 passed by respondents no.1 and 2 respectively.

¶6

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner with the land in dispute and further be directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute. "

¶7

Since copy of the impugned order dated 25.09.1991 has not been filed by the petitioner and as such this court passed an order dated 23.03.2017, as under:

¶8

"List in the week commencing 23 April 2017, by which date counsel for the petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Chaupan, District Sonabhadra dated 25.9.1991 and file a copy of the same alongwith clearly legible and complete type copy through the supplementary affidavit before this Court.

¶9

It has been informed that the Assistant Record Officer also acts as a Forest Officer when the matter is proposed to be reserved as forest area Under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act for deciding objections. "

¶10

The petitioner has not complied with the afore-quoted order dated 23.03.2017. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24.04.2003 in Review Petition No.503 of 2002 relating to Misc. Civil Appeal No.540 of 1991 (Indra Dev and others vs. Ram Prasad and others) passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anpara at Obra, Sonbhadra, shows that the entire case set up by the petitioner was based on paper Nos.66ga and 61ga, which were stated to be compromise. The court below has recorded a finding of fact that it perused the paper Nos.66ga and 61ga, which do not bear signature of any party or signature of the Panchas and therefore, these papers are unreliable. The court below also found that although in khatauni of 1385 Fasli, the name of the petitioner was entered but the possession of the respondent was recorded. Paper No.29ga also proved that at the time of survey, the possession of the respondent was found. The findings recorded by the court below and the authorities are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences available on record, which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 5.4.2019/NLY

Indradev v. State of U.P. Thru the Additional District and Sess. Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indradev v. State of U.P. Thru the Additional District and Sess. Judge

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

Dharmendra Kumar Vs Indra Nath

Shiv Bachan Yadav Vs Lakhraniya and 4 Others

Saroj and Another Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Attarra Banda and 8 Others

State of U.P.and Others Vs Dhatuwa

Smt. Javitre Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and Others

Mohammad Arif Vs State of U.P. and Another