Disposed

Indramani v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023CRLP/5950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking mandamus for eviction and damages under an old Section 145 order. Instead of making a final order, the court directed the petitioner to approach the civil court within 30 days for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to move application for compliance of Section 145 order before concerned court within 30 days.

Indramani Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197130

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5950 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Indramani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravin Kumar Srivastava,Radhe Shyam Gupta

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Yogendra Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

None has appeared for the respondents even in the revised call.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused material on record.

¶10

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been moved with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.5 Harish Chand Tiwari to vacate the property in dispute and pay damages to the petitioner at the rate to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court with w.e.f. 23.01.2016, the date of dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2009 preferred aainst order dated 09.09.2009 of SDM, Machhishahar, Jaunpur with further direction to respondent nos. 1 to 5 to cause to evict respondent no.5 Harish Chand Tiwari from the property in dispute.

¶11

It is submitted that an order under section 145 Cr.P.C. was passed by S.D.M., Machhishahar, Jaunpur on 09.09.2009 against which criminal revision filed before the learned Court of Sessions was dismissed. Hence, the aforesaid order passed by the SDM became final. Since then, several applications have been moved before the SDM to get the order complied with but no action has been taken by him. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed with the request that direction may be issued to the SDM to comply with the order dated 09.09.2009.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has also no objection in this regard.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for

¶14

the State and perusal of the impugned order dated 09.09.2009, it is expedient to direct the petitioner to move an application for compliance of the aforesaid order before the concerned court within 30 days from today. In case such an application is being filed along with a certified copy of this order, learned concerned court shall ensure compliance of the order dated 09.09.2009 within a further period of 30 days from the date of its filing if there is no other legal impediment.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Madhurima

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indramani v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indramani v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile-X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another