Disposed

Jayayuddin v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2021WRIC/10925/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an interim order staying possession during land proceedings under the UP Zamindari Abolition Act. The High Court directed maintenance of status quo, cooperation by the petitioner, and a six-month timeline for the restoration application while imposing costs for delays.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of status quo; cooperation by petitioner; six-month deadline for restoration application decision; costs for adjournments.

Jayayuddin Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10925 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Jayayuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kalp Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kalp Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4-State and Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5-Gaon Sabha.

¶6

The order dated 16.05.98 passed by the competent court in proceedings under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been stayed for a definite period (till the next date of listing) by the impugned order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the learned court below/SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Muhammadabad, District-Ghazipur. The learned revising court/Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi agreed with the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the learned court below/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, TehsilMuhammadabad, District-Ghazipur and dismissed the revision registered as Revision No.551/2017 (Mohd. Amir Vs. Lal Chand Bind and others) by the impugned order dated 27.12.2017.

¶7

Sri Kalp Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶8

contends that in the garb of the interim order granted by the learned court below/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Muhammadabad, District-Ghazipurt, the private parties are disturbing the long held possession of the petitioner.

¶9

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha contend that the disputed parcels of land are recorded in the revenue records as pond. The restoration application is pending before the learned court below. The interim arrangement made by the learned court below subserves the interest of justice.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioner claims that the judgement was rendered by the competent court on 16.05.98 in favour of the petitioner in proceedings taken out under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The learned court below found for the petitioner. The restoration application was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and is pending before the learned court below.

¶12

However, considering the facts disclosed to this Court from the record and the arguments of the learned counsels, it will be apposite to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶13

I. The parties shall maintain status quo over the

¶14

disputed parcels of land till the decision of the restoration application pending before the learned court below.

¶15

II. The petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings before the learned court below initiated by filing of the restoration application on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.

¶16

III. The learned court below shall decide the restoration application within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 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.

¶17

(IV) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the learned court below, or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned court below, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶18

(V) The learned court below, shall give short dates in the proceedings.

¶19

(VI) The learned court below, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶20

(VII) In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the learned court below, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each

¶21

adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment. (VIII). If necessary, the learned court below shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above timeline of six months to decide the restoration application is strictly adhered to.

¶22

(IX). The Gaon Sabha shall also disclose the reasons for delay in filing the restoration application before the learned court below by a separate application.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.10.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Jayayuddin v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayayuddin v. State of U.P. and 9 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

M/S Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Surya Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhure Lal @ Bhure Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rishipal Vs Additional Colleector and 2 Others

Saheb Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat and Another