Dismissed

Anuj Autar Sharma v. District Magistrate Moradabad and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2023WRIC/12970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for sanction of land and removal of illegal constructions. The court held that disputed questions of fact precluded decision-making in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, leaving the petitioner to avail other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction granted for land sanction or removal of construction.

Anuj Autar Sharma Vs District Magistrate Moradabad and… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12970 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Anuj Autar Sharma Respondent :- District Magistrate Moradabad And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Iqbal Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rafat Raza Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rafat Raza Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide his application dated 17.03.2023 for sanction of map over 200 square meters land of plot no. 7/1 situated at village Lalalpur Patti Mohalla Noorullah, near Bus Stop Kundarki Tehsil Bilari, District Moradabad. A direction has further been sought for removal of alleged illegal construction over 52 square meters portion of the plot in question and not to interfere in the construction work of the petitioner over the said plot.

¶7

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has stated on instructions that Khasra Plot no. 7/1 was a bhumidhari land and therefore, there arose no question for grant of patta to the petitioner's father. Land of Khasra plot no. 7/2 is owned by Railways and as such no patta can be granted for the land of Khasra plot no. 7/2. He further submits that land in question is not owned by the petitioner and land of Khasra plot no.03 is part of road.

¶8

From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that a miscellaneous Case no. 97/1993 (Town Area Kundarki vs. Chandra Aautar Sharma and others) and Case no. 196/1990 filed by Chandra Aautar Sharma (father of the petitioner) and the application being paper no. 3/Ga under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC was rejected by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moradabad vide order dated 13.11.2014.

¶9

Since disputed questions of fact are involved which cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, we do not find any good reason to entertain this writ petition.

¶10

The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law.

¶11

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Kirti

¶13

Digitally signed by :- KIRTI SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anuj Autar Sharma v. District Magistrate Moradabad and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Autar Sharma v. District Magistrate Moradabad and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Zanul Abdeen Cold Storage and Ice Udyog Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Seema Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Prem Shankar Gupta and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Udayveer Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Javed Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ishwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others