Disposed

Ram Naresh and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2022WRIC/24446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, vendee of auction purchaser, challenged order evicting them from cultivatory possession. Court did not interfere with impugned order but directed respondent authority to decide petitioner's recall application expeditiously within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no. 2 directed to decide recall application filed against order dated 7.4.2021 within 3 months.

Ram Naresh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24446 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Naresh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaju Ram Prasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pramod K. Gupta,Sher Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bhaju Ram Prasad Sharma / Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta for the private respondent and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

¶7

(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.10.2008 as well as auction notice dated 12.7.2022 (Annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 & 7 to the writ petition)

¶8

(b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents not to interfere in peaceful cultivatory possession of the petitioners regard to plot no.16M, area 4.286 hectare, situated in village Maholiya Viran, Pargana- Khutar, Tehsil- Powayan, District Shahjahapur."

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are vendees of the auction purchaser-respondent no.5. The sale deed of the petitioners is still intact and has not been challenged in any court of law. He further submitted that the names of the petitioners are recorded in the revenue records, on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour. He next submitted that auction purchaser has not intimated the petitioners about the proceedings under Rule 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules as well as about the revision filed before the Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 16.10.2008 which has also been dismissed vide order dated 7.4.2021. When the petitioners came to know about the proceedings and dismissal of the revision, the petitioners filed a recall application before the Board of Revenue to recall the order dated 7.4.2021. He further submitted that respondent no.2 be directed to decide the recall application expeditiously and till the disposal of the recall application, the interim protection be given to the petitioners and their possession may not be disturbed on spot.

¶10

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel and the counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that since the petitioners are vendees and the auction purchaser has himself filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed, as such, no relief can be given to the petitioners.

¶11

I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶12

There is no dispute about the fact that the revision before the Board of Revenue has been filed by respondent no.5 and the Board of Revenue after hearing the respondent no.5 who is the auction purchaser as well as vendor of petitioners has dismissed the revision vide order dated 7.4.2021. Accordingly, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner.

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, respondent no.2 is directed to decide the recall application of the petitioners, filed against the order dated 7.4.2021, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.9.2022 C.Prakash

¶16

Digitally signed by CHANDRA PRAKASH Date: 2022.09.08 18:06:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Naresh and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Harish Chandra Srivastava Vs Vishwanath Nonia and Another

Ram Adhar Vs Jokhan and Ors.

Akash Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhuilot Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Rajkeshar Vs State of U P and 3 Others