Dismissed

Gharbharan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021WRIC/3591/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash an administrative order regarding possession of land needed for a veterinary college, claiming illegal holding. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no legal right in their favor as the competent authority had determined no survey or settlement was possible due to issue complexities.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no directions for restoration of possession or compensation granted.

Gharbharan and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3591 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Gharbharan And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Kumar,Pritam Kumar Singh Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Petitioners vide present petition seeks quashment of order dated 31.01.2020 and direction to respondent nos.3 and 4 to restore the possession over land belonging them and grant compensation for illegally holding the land from 04.10.2016.

¶6

The impugned order as apparent therefrom, in pursuance to the direction dated 19.12.2019 passed with Writ Petition No. 42256 of 2019.

¶7

Evidently, the land in question relates to Gata No. 2782, 2785 and 2787 which was required for establishing veterinary Science College at Janpad Azamgarh wherefor 80.368 acres of land was required. That vide Govt. order dated 19.03.2015, the land was to be settled through private negotiation. In furtherance thereto, sale deed were executed for about 62.35 acres with the persons on the basis of entries in consolidation record. Later inquiry was caused by Collector though three member committee which found that there were fake entries in the revenue records. In pursuance thereto 18 suits were filed before Consolidation Office, Phulpur wherein 14 suits were decided in favour of Gram Sabha and the State. Whereas, 4 suits were decided in favour of individual holders by order dated 25.08.2017 which apparently is not being questioned and is allowed to attain finality. These facts led the Competent Authority to pass following orders:

¶8

“Hkwfe fookfnr gks tkus ds dkj.k fodzsrkx.k dks izfrQy dks Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k] ftlds QyLo:i fodzsrkx.k }kjk fofHkUu ;kfpdk;sa izLrqr dh x;hA blh chPk Hkwfe fOkokfnr gks tkus ds dkj.k tuin vktex< esa mDr ;kstuk dks lekIr djds mls tuin&Hknksgh gsrq LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;k x;kA Hkwfe fookfnr gks tkus rFkk ;kstuk tuin vktex< ls LFkkukUrfjr@lekIr gks tkus ds QyLo:i ;kphx.k vFkok vU; fodzsrkx.k dks izfrQy dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA iz'uxr Hkw&{ks= ij i'kqikyu foHkkx dk dCtk Hkh ugha gS] u rks dksbZ fuekZ.k gh fd;k x;k gSA jktLo vFkok pdcUnh vfHkys[kksa esa i'kq ikyu foHkkx ds i{k esa ukekUrj.k Hkh ugha gqvk gSA xzke&xEHkhjou] rglhy&lnj] tuin vktex< dh pdcUnh izfdz;k m0iz0 tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds vUrxZr lekIr dh tk pqdh gS rFkk vfHkys[k rglhy esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tk pqds gSA izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq funs'kky; Lrj ls funsZ'k fnukad 30-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk gS ftlesa 'kklu ds i= ,oa funs'kky; ds i= fnukad 14-11-2019 dk mYys[k djrs gq, ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 19-12-2019 ds vuqikyu gsrq vxzsRrj dk;Zokgh djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gSA^^

¶9

eSaus mijksDr vk[;k] ,oa fodz; i=ksa dk ifj'khyu fd;k jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa xkVk la0 2782]2785 ,oa 2787 ij fodz; i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij i'kqikyu foHkkx dk ukekarj.k ugha gvk gS] LFky ij Hkh mDr xkVksa esa i'kqikyu foHkkx dk u rks dksbZ dCtk gS u gh dksbZ fuekZ.k gh gSA

¶10

xkVk la0 2782 dk vf/kdka'k {ks=Qy fookfnr gks pqdk gS ftlds QyLo:i i'kq fpfdRlk foKku egkfo|ky; ds fuekZ.k dh ;kstuk Hkh tuin vktex< ls LFkkukUrfjr gks pqdh gSA ;kstuk gsrq izkIr /kujkf'k Hkh okil fd;s tkus gsrq m0iz0 'kklu ,oa i'kqikyu funs'kky; }kjk vkns'k fuxZr fd;s tk pqds gSA mDr

¶11

;kstuk gsrq i'kqikyu foHkkx dks tuin vktex< esa orZeku le; esa Hkwfe dh vko';drk ugha jg x;h gSA dzsrk i'kqiky foHkkx dk dCtk u gksus rFkk ;kstuk ds LFkkukUrfjr gks tkus ij o vf/kdka'k Hkwfe fookfnr gksus ,oa foHkkx }kjk /kujkf'k okil ekaxus ds QyLo:i ;kphx.k dks izfrQy Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA

¶12

vr% ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mijksDr vkns'k fnukad 19-12-2019 ds vuqiky esa ;kphx.k ds izdj.k@ izR;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA”

¶13

Though it is contended that the impugned order travels on wrong facts, however, we are not commended to any such cogent material falsifying the findings by the Competent Authority nor the order dated 25.08.2017 is shown to have been questioned.

¶14

In view of these given facts, we perceive no legal right in favour of the petitioners for the directions sought.

¶15

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.

¶16

No costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 Madhurima

¶18

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)

Gharbharan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gharbharan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Suresh and 4 Others Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Karedeen Bind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rasul Baks and 108 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Kapil Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Shankar Vs Tehsildar/Naib Tasildar Hasayan and 2 Others

Bijay Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others