Ishtakar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 52

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11716 of 2023

Petitioner :- Ishtakar Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

1 . Heard Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shailendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

2 . This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the orders dated 29.07.2019, 01.04.2022 and 16.03.2023.

¶7

3 . A sale deed was executed in favour of one Sheela Devi in the year 1987 and the petitioner is purchaser from Sheela Devi by registered sale deed dated 16.08.2012. It is contended that both the sale deeds describe nature of the plot as "residential plot" and it is recorded as " abadi ".

¶8

4. Pursuant to the complaint made under Section 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act-1950, an ex-parte order was passed in 2013 directing vesting of property in State, against which, the petitioner filed a restoration application which was also rejected in 2018 but the aforesaid orders of 2013 and 2018 were set aside in revision filed by the petitioner by order dated 14.11.2018 and the matter was remanded to Additional District Magistrate concerned for fresh decision.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the remand order, the Additional District Magistrate by order dated 29.07.2019 again directed vesting of property in State ignoring the findings recorded by the Commissioner in the remand order that there is ample evidence to show that the property is a residential property. The petitioner filed a revision against the order dated 29.07.2019 which was heard by the Commissioner concerned and the order was passed on 01.04.2022 keeping the order dated 29.07.2019 as intact by making observation that typed order has been passed separately.

¶10

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was no separately typed order.

¶11

7 . I find from the endorsement made just below the order dated 01.04.2022 that order could not be typed separately on account of transfer of Presiding Officer concerned.

¶12

8. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner filed the recall application dated 20.06.2022 requesting hearing of the matter by the subsequent Presiding Officer, however, the said application has been rejected by order dated 16.03.2023 (impugned in the present writ petition) recording absence of the petitioner.

¶13

9. Learned Standing Counsel submits that by the order impugned, restoration/recall application filed by the petitioner has been rejected for want of prosecution, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as, remedy available to the petitioner is for filing recall application seeking recall of the impugned order dated 16.03.2023.

¶14

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impugned order dated 29.07.2019 is operative, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.

¶15

11. Be that as it may, since by the order impugned, only the recall application has been rejected for want of prosecution, I am not inclined to set aside the order impugned in writ jurisdiction, particularly when, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing recall application for recall of the order dated 16.03.2023 by which his previous recall application was dismissed for want of prosecution in his absence.

¶16

12. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as described hereinabove, this writ petition is being disposed off in the following terms:-

¶17

(a). The petitioner shall file a recall application seeking recall of the order dated 16.03.2023 alongwith certified copy of this order within 15 days from today.

¶18

(b) . The said recall application shall be disposed off expeditiously within one month from the date of its submission.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Jyotsana

¶20

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ishtakar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishtakar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudev Prasad Vs Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and 6 Others

Vinay Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Kamla Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Udai Bhan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sanju Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others