Writ petition filed for mandamus directing respondent commissioner to decide a revision was dismissed because the petitioner failed to address a preliminary objection regarding the absence of appearance by opposite parties.
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. - 27638 of 2021
Petitioner :- Chandra Kant Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punya Sheel Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-1,2, 3 and Miss. Divya Ojha, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel representing respondent-4.
Petitioner has filed present writ petition for writ of mandamus commanding respondent-2 Commissioner Agra Division Agra to decide Revision No. 1773 of 2016 (Pramod Kumar Vs. Naini Chand) under section 333 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act filed by respondent-5 Pramod Kumar against order dated 15.7.2016., passed by respondnet-3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Kheragarh, District Agra in Case No. 264/2013-2014 (Nami Chand Vs. Chandra Kant and Others), under section 176 of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act, within a time period fixed by this Court.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that there is no averment in the writ petition that all the all the opposite parties/respondents in above mentioned revision have put in appearance nor there is an averment to the effect that respondent-2 has passed an order whereby service of notice upon opposite parties/respondents in aforesaid revision has been held to be sufficient. On the aforesaid premise, he submits that mandamus as prayed for by petitioner cannot be issued.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner could not over come the same.
In view of above, present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 2.11.2021 Arshad
Chandra Kant
State Of U.P.
Commissioner Agra Division Agra
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
