Disposed

Smt. Babita v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2021WRIC/8427/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the District Magistrate, Amroha, to decide a representation regarding forcible occupation of land. No Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings were found pending. The court disposed of the matter by directing the respondent to investigate the grievance.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed off by directing the second respondent (Collector/District Magistrate, Amroha) to look into the petitioner's grievance and pass appropriate orders.

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

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8427 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Babita Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shujauddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.

¶6

Considering the nature of the order that we propose to pass, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondent no.4.

¶7

The petitioner's case is that she purchased plot no. 331, area 0.247 hectare and plot no. 347, area 0.101 at village Kailsa, Amroha Dehat, Tehsil and District Amroha through registered sale-deed executed by one Naubat Singh.

¶8

It is the case of the petitioner that a portion of the land has been forcibly occupied by her brother-in-law (respondent no.4) in connection with which she has made a representation (Annexure 4).

¶9

A perusal of the representation would reveal that the petitioner has prayed that there is no proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of the aforesaid land though it is in respect of some other land therefore, no body should interfere with her possession.

¶10

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent no.2 (Collector/District Magistrate, Amroha) to decide the representation of the petitioner.

¶11

On 23.07.2021, we had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instruction whether any proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been initiated in connection with the disputed property or not.

¶12

The learned Standing Counsel sought for additional time to seek instructions.

¶13

As the second respondent can call for report from the concerned police station and pass appropriate orders within his domain, if the situation so demands, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by requiring the second respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner raised in her representation and pass appropriate orders if it falls within his domain.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Smt. Babita v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Babita 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rampati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Neelam Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kiran Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Pratap Narain Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Govind Madhav Basti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others