Dismissed

Sankatha Prasad v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2019WRIC/7763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging non-compliance with demarcation orders under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, the court observed that the writ is not an executing court. After considering a report on filed compliance, the court dismissed the petition, directing aggrieved parties to approach the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved by the non-compliance report.

Sankatha Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7763 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sankatha Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.K.Tripathi, Alok Krishan Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following reliefs:-

¶6

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to carry out the demarcation proceedings in accordance with the orders dated 29.04.2016 and 17.05.2016 (Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 respectively) passed by the Court of Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act.

¶7

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos. 5 to 13 to not obstruct the execution of the demarcation order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition)."

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, Sri Alok Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 8 and perused the material available on record.

¶9

By order dated 07.03.2019, the following order was passed by this Court:-

¶10

"The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi under

¶11

Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, the private respondents are not permitting for demarcation of the land as directed by the revenue court. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere in such matters as it is not an executing court, however, having regard to the fact that there must be respect for the rule of law, we direct learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

¶12

We hope and trust that the Tehsildar concerned shall file compliance report by the next date.

¶13

Put up this case on 22nd April, 2019 as fresh."

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions received, has stated that the demarcation of the land in question has already been made, and some part of the land is in possession of one Gulabi Devi wife of Satya Narayan.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the report with regard to the demarcation of the land in question.

¶16

Be that as it may, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open for him to ventilate his grievances before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Arun

Sankatha Prasad v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankatha Prasad v. State of U.P. and 12 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

Mohammad Ashraf Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kamlesh Rastogi @ Kalawati Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Sundari Shoba and 21 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bireshwar Das and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Kumar Saxena Vs State of U P and 2 Others