Disposed

Munshi Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2019WRIC/31640/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking restraint against interference with the petitioner's possession of land leased for sewerage purposes. The court directed the petitioner to file an application for eviction proceedings within six weeks, reserved power to pass a speaking order thereafter, and stayed forcible dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Direction to file application within six weeks; order to be passed in six weeks thereafter; no forcible dispossession during pendency.

Munshi Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31640 of 2019 Petitioner :- Munshi Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Mishra,Shivam Yadav

¶2

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sudesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anuj Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 5 and perused the record.

¶4

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus seeking restrain order in respect of respondent authority from making any interference with the possession of the petitioner in respect of various plot numbers, details of which have come to be recorded in the order dated 03.01.2002 passed by the Officer concerned of the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur.

¶5

It transpires from the record that some earlier lease was granted to the petitioner in respect of the land which was basically reserved for sewerage purposes. Except a bald statement coming up in para 12 of the writ petition we do not find any such document being brought on record on the basis of which it can be borne out that any coercive measure is sought to be taken against the petitioner so as to cause his eviction from the land in question.

¶6

However, in our view, if the petitioner has any grievance from the authority concerned, as he complains, he may approach the respondent nos. 4 & 5 separately by moving an appropriate application. It is provided that in case if the petitioner files an application, as directed herein above, within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks. It is made clear that no forceful dispossession of the petitioner shall take place from the land in question during the period except in accordance with law.

¶7

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶8

Order Date :- 1.10.2019 IrfanUddin

¶9

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

Munshi Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munshi Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jai Kishore Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mahesh Chandra Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nasreem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

M/S Radha Automobiles and Anotehr Vs Union of India and 2 Others