Disposed

Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023WRIC/20294/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, while hearing a writ petition regarding disputed land and violation of a stay order, did not address the merits. Instead, it directed the concerned lower court to decide the petitioner's interim application for status quo under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of the CPC expeditiously and without adjournments, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the lower court to decide the interim application for status quo expeditiously without adjournments.

Saroj Devi Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194045-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20294 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Saroj Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Charan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Charan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to restrain the respondent nos.4 to 11 not to raise any construction over the Arazi No.987 area 0.0120 hectare situated in Village-Paroraha, Tola-Danbhar Chhpra, Tappa-Parvarpar, Tehsil-Kaptanganj, District-Kushinagar in pursuance of stay order dated 4.11.2006 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Kasya, Kushinagar in Original Suit No.1305 of 2006 (Gaya vs. Puran).

¶9

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to take necessary action on the representation of petitioner dated 12.5.2022 within stipulated period which is pending before the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition)."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner and respondent no.12 are owners of arazi no.987 area 0.0120 hectares situated in Village-Paroraha, TolaDanbhar Chhpra, Tappa-Parvarpur, Tehsil-Kaptanganj, District-Kushinagar and when respondent nos.4 to 11 tried to grab the petitioner's property, petitioner along with co-share filed Original Suit No.1305 of 2006 wherein vide order dated 4.11.2006 the parties were directed to maintain status quo. When the aforesaid order was being flouted by respondent nos.4 to 11, petitioner along with respondent no.12 filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. which has been registered as Misc. Case No.162 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer that direction for expeditious disposal of the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. be issued to the concerned Court.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances, without adverting any opinion on the

¶12

merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to decide the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournments.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 Manish Himwan

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and 11 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

Janardan Prasad Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pooja Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Uma Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs District Magistrate, and 2 Others

Yaduveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others