Disposed

Sanjay Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021A227/278/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought interim protection regarding land possession pending an appeal where the lower court was vacant. Court directed disposal of the underlying matter within six months and maintained status quo for two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authority to decide matter within six months; status quo maintained for two months; no third party rights to be created.

Sanjay Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 278 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjay Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a declaration has been filed by the petitioner on 29.01.2021 in the office.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed following relief:

¶8

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an ad interim order protecting and safeguarding the interest of the applicant/petitioner by means of directing the respondent not to interfere in the peaceful and cultivator possession of the applicant/petitioner in the respects of the arazi no.2148, area 1.400 hectare and arazi no.2150 kh area 0.2100 hectare situated at the village and Mauja-Kharaudhi, ParganaAgori, Tehsil-Robertsganj District- Sonebhadra till the disposal of the Appeal no.51 of 2018 Sanjay Ram Vs. Forest Department under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act, pending before the Additional District Judge Anpara Siruated at Obra District-Sonebhadra, and/or the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other and further order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner the the court below is vacant, and therefore, matter is not being heard decided. Accordingly, he submits that some interim protection may be granted during pendency of the appeal.

¶10

In view of above, this petition is disposed of with direction to the competent authority, respondent no. 4 to decide the matter expeditiously within period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

In the meanwhile, for a period of two months from today, the status quo shall be maintained with regard to nature and possession of the land in question. The Interim relief application shall be heard and decided within aforesaid period in the pending appeal. It is further directed that no third party rights will be created on the land in question.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 pks

Sanjay Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Munna Lal and 2 Others Vs Ram Ratan and 31 Others

M/S Jyoti Engineering Works Vs District Judge Allahabad

Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Prabha Shankar Shukla Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) and 2 Others

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Sahid Dharamveer Filling and Another

Gulam Abdul Qadir Alvi Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Baasi and 7 Others