Disposed

Haribansh Singh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2022WRIC/19201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of orders and continuation of interim protection, directing the Additional District Magistrate to decide the pending revenue matter expeditiously within six months after providing a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional District Magistrate to decide the matter within six months with a hearing; continuation of previous interim protection granted on 07.11.1996.

Haribansh Singh Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19201 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Haribansh Singh Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

The petitioners have preferred the present petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶6

"(a) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 03.06.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as order dated 04.11.1996 passed by the respondent no.3 ( Annexure-9&12 to the writ petition).

¶7

(b) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of petitioners in any manner."

¶8

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that an application was filed by the respondent no. 4 namely Ramratiya before the Chief Revenue Officer, Ghazipur under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, the same was rejected by the Chief Revenue Officer vide order dated 15.11.1994.

¶9

Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a recall application was filed which was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) District - Ghazipur vide order dated 04.11.1996. By the aforesaid order, the earlier order dated 15.11.1994 was recalled and the matter was directed to be heard a fresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶10

Aggrieved against the order dated 04.11.1996, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, IInd, Varanasi Region Varanasi/respondent no.2. The said revision was duly entertained and interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner on 07.11.1996, copy of which is appended as Annexure-11 to the present petition.

¶11

Ultimately, the aforesaid revision was finally decided by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 03.06.2022. By the aforesaid order the matter was remanded back before the respondent no.3 to decide the matter within a period of two months after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶12

Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

¶13

After some arguments, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner to direct the respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) District- Ghazipur to decide the matter expeditiously but after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further argued that since an interim protection was granted by the respondent no.2 when the revision was filed by the petitioner vide order dated 07.11.1996, the said protection be permitted to continue in favour of the petitioner till the matter is finally decided by the respondent no.3.

¶14

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and perused the record.

¶15

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not be issued to the respondent no.4.

¶16

In the facts and circumstances of the case and without interfere with the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as order dated 04.11.1996 passed by the respondent no.3, the present petition is disposed of finally directing the respondent no.3 / Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) District Ghazipur to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.

¶17

It is made clear that till the time, the decision has been taken by the respondent no. 3 in the matter, interim protection granted by the respondent no. 2 in favour of the petitioner dated 07.11.1996 will continue.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.8.2022 Swati

¶19

Digitally signed by SWATI PATHAK Date: 2022.08.18 17:32:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haribansh Singh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haribansh Singh Yadav and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryabhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Indra Bahadur Singh Vs Sanjiv Kumar Rai Zila Sahayak Nibandhak

Chetram Dattak Vs Rakesh Shankar S.P. Jalaun and Another

Devi Shankar Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others

Smt. Munni Devi Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Ram Narain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others