Dismissed

Brijesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020WRIC/8825/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged an order expunging their name from agricultural land records under the U.P. Land Revenue Code via a writ petition. The court dismissed the writ as an improper forum since a revision was available but unbefiled, granting time to file the revision instead.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; leave granted to file a revision within 2 weeks for consideration on merits.

Brijesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8825 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Order impugned in the present writ petition dated 2.12.2019 appears to have been passed on the basis of a direction issued by this court in Writ Petition No. 17404 of 2019, decided on 21.5.2019. By the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandra Rao dated 2.12.2019, the name of petitioner in respect of certain agricultural land is expunged.

¶6

It is not in issue that the petitioners' ancestor executed a gift of certain land in favour of Gram Samaj and upon such land a primary school has been established which is actually functioning. Subsequently, a suit was filed by the petitioners' ancestors disputing the execution of gift, which has ultimately failed with its dismissal on 18.9.2008. Appeal filed against it is also stated to have been dismissed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not referable to any provisions of law.

¶8

Petition is opposed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, who has entered appearance on behalf of one Dev Brat Yadav who has been heard as intervenor. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has also opposed the petition on the basis of the instructions received.

¶9

From a perusal of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hathras, it is apparent that direction to expunge the name of the petitioners is clearly referable to Section 64 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.The issue has been exercised pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 17404 of 2019.

¶10

Admittedly, a revision lies against such an order which has not been filed. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain challenge to the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate directly in the writ petition.

¶11

Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. It shall, however be open for petitioners to challenge the order by preferring revision, and in case such a revision is filed within 2 weeks from today the same shall be entertained on merits.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 n.u.

Brijesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar 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

Rama Shanker @ Ram Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sudhir Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravendra Kumar and 35 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

C/M St. Marks Society and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Kusuma Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Sweeti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others