Disposed

Gangadeen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023WRIC/18938/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, claiming ownership of a plot alleging interference by private persons, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus. The court directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation with Revenue Authorities within two weeks instead of adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file comprehensive representation with Revenue Authority within two weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Gangadeen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142283

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18938 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Gangadeen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Pandey,Kashi Nath Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anoop Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶7

The petitioner claims to be owner of Gata No. 538, measuring 0.2320 hectare, situated in village Ahinda, Pargana Kotla, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur. He has approached this Court raising a grievance that certain private persons are interfering in the construction of the house of the petitioner over Gata No. 538.

¶8

It is contended that petitioner has approached the Revenue Authorities, but no heed has been paid to his representation. He thus has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to the authorities to consider his grievance and pass appropriate orders restraining private respondents.

¶9

Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel submits that let the petitioner approaches the respondent No. 4 by way of a comprehensive representation raising all his grievance and in turn, respondent No. 4 shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.

¶10

Considering the submissions advanced, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same is accordingly, disposed of requiring the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation raising all his grievances before respondent No. 4 within two weeks from today.

¶11

In the eventuality of filing such a representation being filed by the petitioner along with certified copy of this order, it is expected that the respondent No. 4 shall consider all aspects of the matter

¶12

and pass appropriate orders and do the needful with regard to the grievances raised by the petitioner in his representation, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter.

¶13

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it shall be open for the respondent No. 4 to pass appropriate orders.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gangadeen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadeen v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Sabita Yadav Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rammehar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Buddh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Umakant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anjali Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others