Disposed

Ram Sewak and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2020WRIC/11934/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus to stay dispossession and expedite the decision on a land ceiling application under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The Court directed the Prescribed Authority to decide the application within three months while clarifying that the claim was not adjudicated on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide the application under Section 11(2) within three months and stay dispossession pending disposal.

Ram Sewak and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11934 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Sewak And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State - respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, amongst other, following relief:-

¶7

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Prescribed Authority to process and decide the application u/s 11(2), U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act by passing reasoned speaking order in accordance with law within the time frame and till the disposal of the aforesaid application the dispossession of the petitioner from Plot Nos. 38 M area 4.74 acre, 72 M area 1.22 acre, 38/1 area 4.25 acre, plot no. 342 and plot no. 323 area 1.291 hectare, plot no. 170 area 1.637 hectare and old plot no. 574 area 0.53 hectare situate at Village: Koni, Tehsil:Sadar, District: Gorakhpur by the District Administration may be stayed."

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the one hand the application under section 11(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act of 1960') is pending before the Prescribed Authority, on the other hand the authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute.

¶9

To the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel has no objection in so far as the expeditious disposal of the petitioner's application is concerned.

¶10

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending.

¶11

This writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Gorakhpur to decide the petitioner's application under section 11(2) of the Act of 1960 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶12

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioners on merits.

¶13

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned.

¶14

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.9.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-

Ram Sewak and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sewak and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 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

Sooraj Kumar Mishra Vs District Magistrate and Another

Ram Keval Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Suresh Prasad Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mithilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Punam Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Small Transporter Motor Transport Cooperative Societies Ltd. and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others