A petitioners sought to restrain illegal construction by local officials. Counsel decided not to press the petition, resulting in dismissal without engaging substantive issues under Article 226.
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. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27509 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sita Ram And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yashwant Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Umesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
The petitioners are before this Court with request to issue direction to the State respondents to restrain the Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Bahriya Satanpur, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj from raising illegal construction on the land in dispute.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners purchased 0.0342 hec. (3 bigha) land in Arazi No.212 situated in Mauza Satanpur, Pargana Shikandra, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj from Amarnath through registered sale deed dated 17.4.1997 and their names have been recorded in the revenue record. The Gram Pradhan is illegally constructing the Panchayat Bhawan on the land of the petitioners.
On the other hand, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, on the basis of instructions, submit that the disputed facts have been agitated by the petitioners before the competent forum and various proceedings are pending consideration. So far as the construction of Panchayat Bhawan is concerned, the same has already been constructed on the spot and therefore, the relief, as has been prayed, cannot be accorded to the petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not want to press the writ petition and the writ petition may be dismissed, as not pressed.
The present writ petition is dismissed, as not pressed. However, it is always open to the petitioners to invoke the remedy as available in law.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
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.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021 RKP
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sita Ram And 4 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
