Petitioner challenged orders regarding land eviction. Court rejected preliminary objections that petitioner was not a party to underlying cases and that this Court cannot execute orders under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, leading to dismissal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25238 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jahid Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Baijant Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 3 and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel representing respondent-4.
Petitioner- Jahid Ali has approached this Court with following prayer:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direct to comply the order dated 28.12.2019 and evict the respondents no.5 to 7 in Arazi No. 2023/1/0.004 in Case No. 04869/2018, Computer Case No. T- 201805440104869 (Gram Sabha Vs. Indrajeet), Case No. 04871/2018, Computer Case No. T-201805440104871 (Gram Sabha Vs. Silap), Case No. 04873/2018, Computer Case No. T-201805440104873 (Gram Sabha Vs. Jhagaru) (Annexure no. 1, 2 and 3 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direct to respondent no.3 to evict the respondents no.5 to 7 in Arazi No. 2023/1/0.004 in Case No. 04869/2018, Computer Case No. T- 201805440104869 (Gram Sabha Vs. Indrajeet), Case No. 04871/2018, Computer Case No. T-201805440104871 (Gram Sabha Vs. Silap), Case No. 04873/2018, Computer Case No. T-201805440104873 (Gram Sabha Vs. Jhagaru).
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel submits that since petitioner is not a party to the proceedings of afore-mentioned case, therefore, he cannot maintain the present writ petition. It is also submitted that this Court cannot be converted as an executing court in respect of an order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Remedy of petitioner is to approach the authorities concerned under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.
In view of above, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Saif
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is maintainable in his capacity as a non-party to the underlying proceedings.
Whether this Court can function as an executing court for an order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jahid Ali
State Of U.P.
Others
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
