Allowed

Raju Alias Kamlesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2022WRIC/35000/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the Assistant Collector to decide the petitioner's correction application under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within five months while maintaining status-quo of the disputed land title.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to decide application dated 28.7.2021 within five months; status-quo of land title maintained for six months.

Raju Alias Kamlesh and 2 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35000 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Raju Alias Kamlesh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents through Video Conferencing.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶7

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Kanpur Nagar to decide the application dated 28.7.2021 filed by petitioner under Section 32/38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 forthwith."

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by mistake name of father of the petitioners has not been recorded in the revenue records, therefore, for correction of the same, they filed an application dated 28.7.2021 under Section 32/38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the respondent no. 3 upon which report of Revenue Inspector dated 23.10. 2021 has also been obtained. In the said report, error was also accepted and further recommendation was made to correct the revenue records, but till date revenue records have not been corrected. He next submitted that private respondents are trying to alienate the land in question by misusing the error of revenue records. He lastly submitted that a suitable direction may be issued to consider and decide the application of the petitioner at the earliest maintaining status quo with regard to title as on date.

¶9

Learned standing counsel submitted that application of the petitioners dated 28.7.2021 shall be considered and decided in accordance with law at the earliest.

¶10

Under such facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the application of the petitioner 28.7.2021 in accordance with law expeditiously, if possible within five months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶11

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merit. It is upon the respondent no. 3 to pass order after considering the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

¶12

& U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 or any other law occupying the field as well as facts of the case.

¶13

For a period of six months or till the disposal of the application of the petitioner dated 28.7.2021, whichever is earlier, status-quo with regard to title of land in dispute shall be maintained as on date.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.1.2022 Rmk.

Raju Alias Kamlesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Alias Kamlesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 11 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

Rekha Devi Vs Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Jawahir Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sarita and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Urmila Devi Vs State of U P and 11 Others

Bhuteli and 2 Others Vs D.D.C. Kushinagar and 3 Others

Kalyan Singh and 7 Others Vs Member, Board of Revenue and Another