Petitioner seeking land possession. Court found previous order was complied with; cause of action extinguished; writ petition dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed as the cause of action ceased to exist following the earlier order.
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. - 46
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3825 of 2019
Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel of the State.
This Court on 08.02.2019 had passed the following order:-
"Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was allotted Land Arazi No 18(sa) area, 0.136 hectares on 18.4.2015. Thereafter, pursuant to lease deed, the name of the petitioner was endorsed in the Khatauni on 7.11.2015. He was given possession of land. It is contended that except possession on paper, actual physical possession of the land in question was not handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an earlier writ petition being Writ -C 3033 of 2018, Satendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others and this Court by means of judgement and order dated 6.9.2018, disposed of the same with a direction that in case, the petitioner files a representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer, along with a certified copy of the order passed by the Court, he should pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of filing of the representation, if there is no legal impediment. However, instead of handing over possession, District Officers got an agreement dated 1.10.2018 executed between the petitioner and the private respondent nos. 5 to 9 for handing back the land to the petitioner after harvesting of crops by the private respondents.
It is stated that even after the crops were harvested , possession of the land in dispute has not been handed over to the petitioner.
Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted ten days time to obtain instructions in the matter.
List this matter on 19.2.2019 in the additional cause list."
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that the order dated 08.02.2019 has been complied with and no cause of action survives in the writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019/S.Sharma
Satyendra Kumar
State Of U.P.
8 Others
Saral Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
