Disposed

Smt. Poonam Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2019WRIC/56216/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding a cancelled plot allotment. It directed the District Magistrate to consider the petitioner's restoration application, which had been filed within four weeks, and decide within the next four weeks, citing the petitioner's willingness to pay charges and accept the earlier demanded plot size.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply for restoration of allotment cancelled on 09.11.2006 within four weeks; District Magistrate to consider application within four weeks.

Smt. Poonam Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Others — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56216 of 2010

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Poonam Srivastava Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamal Ali,Adil Jamal,Ashok Gupta,Sudhanshu Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sant Ram Sharma

¶5

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

¶6

Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sant Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and and Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4.

¶8

In view of directions contained in our order dated 21.11.2019, respondent no. 3, namely, District Magistrate, Heera Lal, District Magistrate, Banda is personally present before this Court and has also filed personal affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶9

In the presonal affidavit that has been filed today, the respondent has shown reasons for not delivering the possession of the plot in question and why the petitioner's allotment has also come to be cancelled on 09.11.2006, copy whereof had also been sent to the petitioner by registered post on 10.11.2006. Photostat copy of the deposit receipts have also been brought on record. He has also drawn our attention towards letter written by the petitioner himself which is undated, in which petitioner has referred to the cancellation of the allotment order.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since allotment of the petitioner has come to be cancelled, now he is ready to pay restoration charges for the consideration of the restoration of the allotment of the plot.

¶11

To this above request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent does not have any objection. He though submitted that the demand of the petitioner for the allotment of the plot was to the extent of only 40.25 square meters whereas plot that has come to be allotted to the petitioner is more than 87.75 square meters, but he concedes that if the petitioner agrees to accept 40.50 square meters only as earlier demanded by him, he may directed to pay the balance amount and the amount as has already been paid earlier shall be adjusted at the time of the assessment of the price

¶12

of the allotted plot.

¶13

The District Magistrate, who happens to be Vice Chairman of the development authority Banda is personally present in Court and has given assurance to consider the application of the petitioner in the above regard.

¶14

In such view of the matter since assistance has been rendered by the District Magistrate and we find that sufficient reasons have been explained away in the personal affidavit filed today, as such, personal appearance of the District Magistrate stands dispensed with and the notices issued to him stand discharged.

¶15

Thus in the above facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with direction that in case petitioner applies for restoration of the allotment qua cancellation order dated 09.11.2006 within period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the District Magistrate Magistrate in accordance with law within further period of four weeks.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Sanjeev

¶17

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

Smt. Poonam Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Poonam Srivastava v. State of U.P. 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

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kavita Raj Gupta Vs Chairman Nagar Panchayat and 3 Others

M/S N. Kay Refractory Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Another

Rizwan Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ummed Vs State of U.P. and Others

Riyasat Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others