Disposed

Raj Dev Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2022WRIC/21390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court recorded instruction that the impugned notice pertained to Plot No. 52, not Plot No. 64, and no encroachment was alleged on Plot No. 64. Consequently, the Court held no order was required for Plot No. 64 and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No order required in respect of Plot No. 64 as no interference in the right of petitioners was alleged; writ petition disposed of.

Raj Dev Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21390 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Dev Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.5-Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶7

"1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 17.06.2022 which is given by the Revenue Inspector/Area Lekhpal Mauza Jagdishpur Dhurbin, Pargana Sadiabad, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District- Ghazipur (Annexure No.6) to this writ petition.

¶8

2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents authority to not dispossess to the petitioners in Gata No.64 hence which is recorded as "Navin Parti" which is situated at Village Jagdishpur Dhurbin, Pargana Sadiabad, Tehsil Jakhania, DistrictGhazipur during the pendency of Restoration Application No.06 of 2015 in Suit No.245 of 2007 (Vikram Yadav and Others Vs. Arvind Singh and Others).

¶9

3. Issue any such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶10

4. Award the cost of the writ petition throughout in favour of the petitioners"

¶11

This Court vide order dated 1.8.2022/22.8.2022 directed the counsel for the respondents to obtain instruction in the matter.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel placed instruction before the Court in which it is mentioned that no notice has been issued in respect to Plot No.64 and there is no encroachment in respect to Plot No.64 rather the notice was given to the petitioners in respect to Plot No.52 in which there is encroachment by the petitioners.

¶13

Accordingly, learned Standing Counsel submitted that writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect to Plot No.52, the earlier Writ-C No.17702 of 2022 was filed and this Court vide order dated 27.6.2022 disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities that in absence of any regular proceeding the impugned notice cannot be sustained and the same was set aside by this Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioners have been given notice in respect of Plot No.64 also, as such, present writ petition be also disposed of in terms of order passed in Writ-C No.17702 of 2022.

¶16

In view of the clear instruction of the learned Standing Counsel that there is no encroachment on Plot No.64 and no notice was issued to the petitioners in respect to Plot No.64, as such, no order is required in respect to Plot No.64. If respondents will make any interference with the right of petitioners in respect to Plot No.64 then petitioners can approach this Court again.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.9.2022 Rameez

¶19

Digitally signed by RAMEEZ AHMED Date: 2022.09.13 14:31:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Dev Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Dev Yadav and 3 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Umesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lokman and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Akhilesh Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Bachhi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others