Dismissed

Ashfaq v. Collector Saharanpur and Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2019WRIC/30122/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order imposing damages for encroachment on land agreed to be reserved for a road. The court found the petitioner was no longer in occupation and noted a lack of material showing the encroached land was legally incorporated into his holding, thus refusing to interfere with the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish that the encroached land was incorporated into his holding.

Ashfaq Vs Collector Saharanpur and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30122 of 2007

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashfaq Respondent :- Collector Saharanpur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sursh Chandra Varma,Raj Kishore Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

This petition impugns an order passed by the respondents under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Both the authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner had encroached upon Plot Nos.118 and 119 which had been earmarked for a Chakroad and Nali pursuant to a compromise and agreement entered into between the parties on 24 February 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner however refers to the order dated 17 January 2008 in proceeding initiated under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 2006 and submits that his application for correction of map has since been granted and consequently he has perfected his occupation over the additional area which now forms part of his original land holding comprised in Plot No.13.

¶8

The Court notes that as per the admitted case of parties, the petitioner had been evicted and is no longer in occupation. That only leaves the Court to deal with the issue of damages which was imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner however has not addressed any submission touching upon the merits of the quantum of damages which was ultimately imposed. He restricted his submission to the subsequent order passed by the respondents in proceedings initiated for correction of map.

¶9

However the Court notes that presently there is no material on the record which may establish that the land which formed part of Plot Nos.118 and 119 has now been deleted and included in the bhumidhari of the petitioner. In the absence of any such material, while the Court refuses to interfere with the orders impugned, it leaves it open to the petitioner to institute such proceedings as may be chosen and advised for declaration of his rights.

¶10

The writ petition is consequently dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 1.11.2019 Vivek Kr.

Ashfaq v. Collector Saharanpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashfaq v. Collector Saharanpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zafar Ali Vs Munney and Another

Ram Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and Ors.

Karan Singh and Ors. Vs Sheo Raj Singh and Ors.

Naim Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Om Prakash Sharma Vs the Presiding Officer of Labour Court Agra and Another

C/M Holy Bless Asha Academy through Its Manager and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others