Disposed

Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2023WRIB/3902/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court rejected the maintainability of the petition as the property dispute is pending before the Board of Revenue. The writ is disposed of with liberty to approach the Revenue Board on the merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to file an application before the Board of Revenue within six weeks to decide the matter on merits.

Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:228140

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3902 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwaini Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri T.P. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the Stateresopondents No. 1 to 4 and perused the record.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revision under Section 209 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 bearing case No. REV/2235/2023/Sonbhadra, computerized case No. R20231666002235 (Nand Lal vs. Arun Kumar and Company through its manager Dev Krishna) is pending for adjudication in respect of the same property. He further submtis that the said revision has already been admitted vide order dated 21.8.2023. By means of the said order, the learned Board of Revenue while admitting the said revision has granted an interim order to the effect that no third party right shall be created in respect of the property in question.

¶8

In paragraph No. 11 of the said writ petition, the petitioners have stated that the petitioners and his family have the possession on the land even before the fasli year 1385 and they are living there and cultivating the same, hence the petitioners and his family members are entitled to get the benefit of the law of adverse possession, but with the connivance of respondent No. 5 the Stateauthorities are compelling the petitioners to hand over the possession of the land to respondent No. 5.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition being a private dispute between the petitioners and the private-respndents No. 5.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that since the dispute in respect of the property in question is already pending before the learned Board of Revenue in case bearing No. REV/2235/2023/Sonbhadra, computerized

¶11

case No. R20231666002235 (Nand Lal vs. Arun Kumar and Company through its manager Dev Krishna), it would be appropriate not to interfere in the matter at this stage under the writ jurisdiction.

¶12

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the writ petition pending and it would be appropriate that the writ petition be disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application in the aforesaid pending revision, narrating all the facts in detail before the learned Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue shall after taking into consideration the facts of the case, may pass appropriate orders on merit, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the next date fixed in the revision or within a maximum period of six weeks thereafter.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.12.2023 Sumaira

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Smt. Humaira Sultana Vs Board of Revenue U.P. and 4 Others

Jahiruddin and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Harsh Vardhan and 2 Ors. Vs Board of Revenue and 10 Others

Ramnarayan Singh Vs Board of Revenue and 48 Others

Mohd. Akram and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kurban Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others