Disposed

Ram Suresh Prasad v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2020WRIC/12310/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions for the expeditious disposal of a pending ceiling application and a stay on dispossession. The High Court directed the Prescribed Authority to decide the application within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Gorakhpur to decide the petitioner's application under section 11(2) of the Act of 1960 within two months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12310 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Suresh Prasad Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

"(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 old Plot Nos. 315 M and 353 M of which new no. 224 arrea 385 hectare and another old plot no. 38 M of which new plot nos. 38/23/24/27/28/203 Ka situate at Village: Koni, Tehsil:Sadar, District: Gorakhpur by the District Administration may be stayed."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶10

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

¶11

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. 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 two 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 petitioner on merits. The party shall file computer generated

¶13

copy of this 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 :- 1.9.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-

Ram Suresh Prasad v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Suresh Prasad 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

Shamsher Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mangaru and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Paltu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sooraj Kumar Mishra Vs District Magistrate and Another

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

Gyanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others