Disposed

Irshad Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023WRIC/10199/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court declined to adjudicate facts regarding land conversion but disposed of this writ petition by directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to expedite the petitioner's representation within six weeks without prejudicing merit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks.

Irshad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10199 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Irshad Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Paritosh Sukla,Krishna Kant Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that land of Arazi No. 59, Gata No. 18 having area 0.2720 hectares was declared as 'Abadi' in the year 1975.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court over a document available at page no. 34 of the Writ Petition which is Khatauni, which shows that the aforesaid land is entered as 'Abadi'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also apprised to the Court that he has residential establishment over the aforesaid 'Abadi' land but opposite parties are trying to dispossess him.

¶8

I find from the record that the petitioner has already filed a representation before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor for redressal of his grievance.

¶9

This Court while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate the factual aspects of the matter, particularly as to since when petitioner is having a house over the aforesaid 'Abadi ' land, therefore, this Court declines to entertain this Writ Petition. However since the petitioner has already made representation to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for redressal of his grievance, therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition, expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶10

It is made clear that this Court has not made any adjudication on the merits of the case.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 A. Mandhani

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irshad Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad Ahmad 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

Smt. Isartun Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sabiha Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satyanath Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saroj and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Tribhuwan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others