Disposed

Kashinath Maurya v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2021WRIC/2864/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for direction to decide a pending appeal and stay application in a land acquisition compensation matter. Court directed the Additional District Magistrate to decide the interim application within ten days and the entire appeal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide interim application within ten days and entire appeal within six months.

Kashinath Maurya Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2864 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Kashinath Maurya Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

¶8

"(a) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to Additional District Magistrate (Protocol) Varanasi, to decide the Appeal No. 04636/2019 computerized case no. D201914700004646 Kashinath Vs. State under Section 67 (5) U.P. Revenue Code 2006 along with stay application in aforesaid appeal pending before in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Protocol), Varanasi within a reasonable time as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶9

(b) Issue an ad interim mandamus in favour of the petitioner commanding the respondents no. 3 and 4 to not interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner in the land in question i.e. Araji no 1038 having area 0.09 acre situated at Mauja Sajoi, Paragana0Kaswar Raja, Tehsil-Rajatalab, District Varanasi, and not to recover the compensation amount from him during pendency of the aforesaid appeal."

¶10

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal is pending consideration and that the petitioner has file stay application also which has also not been considered.

¶11

Considering the limited prayer made, the writ

¶12

petition is disposed off with a direction upon the Respondent No. 2 to decide the interim application filed in the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law. Respondent No. 2 shall also endeavour to decide the entire appeal itself as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months thereafter from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶13

Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.7.2021

¶15

vinay

Kashinath Maurya v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Maurya v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Kusum Devi and 6 Others Vs Additional Commissioner and 4 Others

Udayraj Vs State of U.P. and 22 Others

Smt.Nisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar Rathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others