Dismissed

Shubendu Garg and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2022WRIC/657/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to implead Vanshika Garg as the legal representative of a deceased petitioner. Regarding the main writ petition challenging land acquisition, the court dismissed the petition as the petitioners voluntarily withdrew their challenge, directing authorities to proceed with the acquisition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Vanshika Garg impleaded; withdrawal of writ petition allowed; authorities directed to proceed with acquisition.

Shubendu Garg and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Serial No. 311

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 657 of 2015

¶4

Petitioner :- Shubendu Garg and another Respondent :- State of U.P. and others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate for respondent No.2, Mr. Ankit Gaur, Standing Counsel

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal,Chief Justice Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶7

Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2018 in Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 3 of 2018..

¶8

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

¶9

The application is disposed of.

¶10

Order on Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 3 of 2018.

¶11

The prayer made in the present application is for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of petitioner no. 2, namely, Sudha Garg on record.

¶12

It is stated that petitioner no. 2-Sudha Garg expired on January 23, 2018 and is survived by her son Shubendu Garg, who is already on record as petitioner no. 1 and daughter Vanshika Garg.

¶13

The application is allowed.

¶14

Let the name of Vanshika Garg be impleaded as legal representative of deceased-petitioner no. 2.

¶15

A note to the effect that the son of the deceased is already on record as petitioner no. 1 be also appended in the memo of parties.

¶16

Office to carry out necessary correction.

¶17

Order on main petition.

¶18

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the acquisition of land for which

¶19

-2-

¶20

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on July 13, 2012 followed by Notification under Section 6 thereof on August 22, 2013. An order was passed by this Court on January 15, 2015 vide which parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession over the land in dispute.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to changed circumstances, the petitioners do not want to press the present writ petition at this stage and the authorities can proceed further with the acquisition of the land.

¶22

As the petitioners do not want to press the present petition, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

The authorities may proceed further with the acquisition, in case, the same is required.

¶24

Date :- 3.2.2022 Shiraz/Pramod Tripathi

¶25

(Prakash Padia, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

Shubendu Garg and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubendu Garg and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Pramod Kumarand Gupta and 20 Others Vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Indumati Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhananjay Kumar Dixit and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kalawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lallu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vimal Kumar Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another