Disposed

Mumtaz v. State of up and others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2021WRIC/16267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus for demarcation of specific plots by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and protection of possession. The court disposed of the petition on consent, directing the third respondent to decide the underlying revenue application expeditiously within three months via a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the application for demarcation of the disputed plots by a reasoned order within three months.

Mumtaz Vs State of up and others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16267 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mumtaz Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

By the instant petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶7

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to decide the case No. 619 of 20192020 (Mumtaz and others Vs. Azaz Ahmad and others) with regard to demarcation of plot No. 959 Kha, area 0.028 hectare of Khata No. 358 and plot No. 959 Ka area 0.251 hectare of Khata No. 67 located in Village Palthi, Pargana Mahul, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh within a specific time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

"ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4 to 6 not to disturb the peaceful possession of petitioner over the disputed plot No., 959 Kha, area 0.028 hectare of Khata No. 358 and plot No. 959 Ka area 0.251 hectare of Khata No. 67 located in Village Palthi, Pargana Mahul, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh."

¶9

It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under section 21/24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been filed for demarcation of the plots in question on the spot. The grievance of the petitioner is that till date demarcation has not been undertaken.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the third respondent, SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, shall pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶11

In view thereof, on consent, the petition is disposed of directing the third respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, to consider and decide the application of the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably, within three months from the date of filing of the application, after hearing respondent nos. 4 to 7. Petitioner undertakes to supply the copy of application alongwith a copy of the writ petition.

¶12

It is clarified that the Court has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.7.2021 K.K. Maurya

¶14

Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2021.07.22 17:14:38 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mumtaz v. State of up and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaz v. State of up and 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

Anwar Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babbu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yunis Khan Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Gyan Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Molai Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ramesh Chandra and Another Vs Additional Commissioner and 3 Others