Disposed

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2022WRIC/35275/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the indefinite pendency of a claim regarding land acquired for a bus station. The single bench directed the Collector to decide the petitioner's claim and related objections expeditively within four months.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed off by directing the Collector Kushinagar to address the petitioner's claim and take a decision within four months.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35275 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Prakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mritunjay Mohan Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

The Court has been addressed through Video Conferencing.

¶6

The prayer in this petition is to command the second respondent (Collector, Kushinagar) to decide Misc. Case No. 80 of 2001. It appears from the record that the petitioner raised an objection in respect of certain land over which a bus station of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has been established. This objection seems to be pending since 2001 as Misc. Case No. 80 of 2001. In the meantime, one Moti Lal and six others filed Writ C No. 7274 of 2014 complaining that they have not been paid compensation for illegal utilization of their land by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and that their objection is pending before District Magistrate/Collector Kushinagar. The grievance of the petitioner is that his objection is also pending and till date, no decision has been taken.

¶7

Sri Mritunjay Mohan Sahai, who appears that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, submits that the land was acquired in the year 1959 and compensation has been paid. Detailing all those facts they have filed a detailed objection in those miscellaneous proceedings.

¶8

Be that as it may, as the petitioner has raised a claim and, it appears, others have also raised similar claim and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, we are of the view that their claim needs to be decided and not kept pending indefinitely.

¶9

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by requiring the Collector Kushinagar, District Kushinagar to address the claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months, from the date a copy of this order is produced in his office. Needless to add that the claim shall be addressed after giving

¶10

opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

¶11

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion as regards the merit of the claim of the petitioner.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.1.2022 Ankita

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Mohd. Shamim Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ghanshyam Pal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shivdutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arya Samaj Gandhi Nagar Basti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others