Dismissed

Girish Chandra Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2022WRIC/17915/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking protection of land possession. The Court held that the petitioners failed to disclose the pendency of revenue proceedings against them, lacking clean hands, as required for grant of the requested reliefs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' request for direction to protect land possession and prevent dispossession was dismissed.

Girish Chandra Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17915 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Agrawal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Upadhyay,Abhinav Gaur,Sr. Advocate,Vibhu Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel has supplied written instructions to bring on record an order dated 7.11.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer(Sadar), Kanpur Nagar in the case No. 03099/2018(Kanpur Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Agarwal) under Section 31/32 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006 to assert that the name of the petitioners from the revenue records in relation to the land in question, has been expunged and the land in question namely, Arazi No.89/1.5060 Hectares in Khata No.97 has been directed to be entered as 'Ussar' in the revenue records.

¶7

It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that factum of pendency of the case under Section 31/32 U.P. Revenue Code2006 has been deliberately concealed by the petitioners herein who have contested the said proceedings before the competent authority. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents does not give correct picture of the facts.

¶8

Present petition has been filed on 23.6.2022 with the reliefs as under:-

¶9

"i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent concerned not to interfere in the possession or enjoyment of the petitioner over the land contained in Aarazi no.89, admeasuring 7 Bigha 9 Biswa situate at Village Chakeri Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar.

¶10

ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent concerned to not to dispossess the petitioner over the land contained in Aarazi no.89, admeasuring 7 Bigha 9 Biswa situate at Village Chakeri Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar except in accordance with law."

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the present writ petition

¶12

is required to be dismissed on account of the concealment of the material facts.

¶13

Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however relied upon decision of the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal the Case No.111 of 87-88(Kanpur Development Authority. vs. Krishna Gopal Agrawal and others) to assert that the dispute between the Kanpur Development Authority and the petitioners herein in the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been decided and declaratory suit of Kanpur Development Authority has been dismissed. The contention is that the order dated 7.11.2022 has been passed by the Competent Authority, Kanpur Nagar in a summary proceeding by concealment of the fact of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 29.3.1997.

¶14

From the written instructions supplied today as also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is evident that the dispute in relation to the land in question was pending between the Kanpur Development Authority and the petitioners herein. The supplied documents show that in the order dated 7.11.2022 passed in the proceedings under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006, the order dated 29.3.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue in the Second Appeal No. 111 of 87-88 has been taken note of.

¶15

Be that as it may, without entering into the claim of the petitioners, it is evident that on the date, when this petition has been filed, the proceedings under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 instituted by the Kanpur Development Authority was pending and it was incumbent upon the petitioners to disclose the said fact for seeking the above reliefs.

¶16

In the said situation, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not come with the clean hands. The concealment on the part of the petitioners about the material fact disentitles them from seeking any indulgence from this Court.

¶17

Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioners herein to seek appropriate relief before the Competent Authority.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.11.2022 P.P.

¶20

Digitally signed by POONAM PATEL Date: 2022.11.18 18:52:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Girish Chandra Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Chandra Agrawal and Another 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

Parmal Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Mubarak Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Othrs

Mansoor Hassan Shah and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohammad Ayyub Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shrawan Kumar Jain and 5 Others Vs the State of U P and 2 Others

Agriserve Producer Company Limited and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others