Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC2 May 2023WRIC/14768/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the auction of a property where he claimed interest. The Court found no claimed ownership over the orchard. Citing a Section 14 order attaching properties due to gang association and noting the petitioner has a remedy under Section 15 which remains unavailed or unsuccessful, the Court held no ground exists to interfere with the auction and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as there is no ground to interfere with the auction proceedings.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98624-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14768 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Javed Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Bhan Yadav,Anand Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

In none of the paragraphs of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed ownership of the mango orchard sought to be auctioned under the impugned notice / press notification dated 29.3.2023. We further find that an order in Case No. 09 of 2022 (State Versus Javed Mohd. and others) under Section 14 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1986"), P. S.Behat, district-Saharanpur has been passed by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur attaching 123 properties. The aforesaid order discloses that against the petitioner, his brothers and father about 62 criminal cases are registered in different cites and in different police stations.

¶8

In the aforesaid order Mohd. Iqbal alias Haji Iqbal alias Bala has been shown to be gang leader and the petitioner and his brother Mohd. Wajid Alishan and Afzal have been shown to be members of the gang. It has been mentioned in the order that these persons have an organized gang and earned illegal money and from that earning they have established several firms and purchased several properties in the name of the companies and others which are necessary to be attached in the interest of justice.

¶9

The aforesaid order under Section 14 of the Act 1986 is not under challenge. The petitioner has a remedy under Section 15 of the Act, 1986 and there is nothing on record to show that either the petitioner has availed remedy or if availed, result thereof.

¶10

Under the circumstances, no ground exists to interfere with the auction proceedings.

¶11

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.5.2023

¶13

¶14

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed 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

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

Anuj Autar Sharma Vs District Magistrate Moradabad and 5 Others

Udayveer Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Ishwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others