Dismissed

Samsullah and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Ors.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2019WRIC/41047/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge order dismissing a writ petition challenging orders by the Additional Commissioner Basti Division and Up Ziladhikari. The court found the orders were passed after due consideration and no interference under Article 226 was warranted; interim stay was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and the interim order dated 8.8.2014 stands vacated.

Samsullah and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41047 of 2014

¶3

Petitioner :- Samsullah And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachchidanand Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.D. Chauhan,Satya Prakash Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the order dated 16.06.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner Basti Division Basti/respondent No.2 in Revision No.184 of 2008-09 and judgement and order dated 22.7.2008 passed by the respondent No.3/Up Ziladhikari Shoharatgarh District Siddharth Nagar in Case No.54 of 2008-09 copy of which are annexed as Annexure Nos.5 and 2 to the writ petition respectively.

¶6

While entertaining the writ petition on 8.8.2014 following order was passed:-

¶7

"Heard Sri Sachchidanand Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

¶8

Issue notice.

¶9

Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Sri D.D. Chauhan has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4. Therefore, notices need not be served again to the aforesaid respondents.

¶10

Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 to 8 through registered post returnable at an early date.

¶11

Steps be taken within two weeks.

¶12

Counter affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel for the respondents by the next date of listing.

¶13

As an interim measure, without prejudice to right and contention of the parties and subject to further orders of this Court, the eviction of the petitioners from the land in dispute shall remain stayed, provided:

¶14

(i) petitioner no. 1 deposits Rs. 500/- and petitioner no. 2 deposits Rs. 1,000/within a period of two months from today before the respondent no. 3;

¶15

(ii) the above amount shall be deposited every year in the same month in which the first deposit is made;

¶16

(iii) the condition of deposit will not apply in case the State Government declares the area under drought or flood;

¶17

(iv) the amount so deposited shall be kept in a separate account;

¶18

(v) in case the writ petition is allowed, the amount so deposited shall be returned

¶19

to the petitioners with interest and in case the writ petition is dismissed, the amount so deposited shall go to the Gaon Sabha;

¶20

(vi) in the meantime, neither any construction shall be made over the land in dispute nor any third party right shall be created;

¶21

(vii) in case of default of the above conditions, the interim protection granted today shall stand vacated."

¶22

A counter affidavit along with stay application has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.5, 5/1, 5/2, 5/3 and 6, 7 and 8 in the month of January 2015 after serving a copy of the same upon the counsel for the petitioners.

¶23

Today when the matter is taken up, no body is present on behalf of the petitioners even in the revised call and nothing has been brought on record that whether the directions given by this Court while granting interim protection vide its order dated 8.8.2014 had been followed or not.

¶24

On the other hand, Ms. Arti Gupta along with Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the authorities and submitted that the orders passed by the authorities after due consideration of the all aspects of the matter and petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

I have perused the orders dated 16.06.2014 and 22.7.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner Basti Division Basti/respondent No.2 and respondent No.3/Up Ziladhikar Shoharatgarh District Siddharth Nagar respectively as well as the facts and grounds as contained in the writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders which are impugned

¶26

From the perusal of the aforesaid impugned orders, facts and grounds mentioned in the writ petition, it appears that both the orders were passed by the authorities after considering all aspects of the matter and the orders do not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶28

Interim order dated 8.8.2014 stands vacated.

¶29

Order Date :- 12.4.2019 saqlain

Samsullah and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samsullah and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Ors.

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

C/M, Madarsa Arabia Ahle Sunnat Madinatul Uloom, Sant Kabir Nagar, and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaya Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Sukhveer and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others