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

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141687

Court No. - 37

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22709 of 2023

Petitioner :- Rammehar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Kulveer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶7

Considering the nature of the dispute and indulgence to be granted by this Court, the service of notice upon respondent Nos. 6 to 7 is being dispensed with.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute pertains to Plot No. 95, measuring 1.4860 hectare situated at village Kaulakhedi (Gangoh), Tehsil Nakur, District Saharanpur. There are about 21 co-sharers of the said plot. One of the co-sharers, namely, respondent No. 7 has executed a gift deed of his share in the plot in question. It is contended that since the plot had not been partitioned, no plot could have been gifted and in such view of the matter, the gift deed is patently illegal. It is also submitted that the petitioner has instituted a suit for partition under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, which is stated to be pending before the Assistant Collector Ist Class/Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Nakur, District Saharanpur.

¶9

It is contended that the gifted portion of the Plot No. 95 is being used for construction of water tank by the respondent No. 6 which is patently illegal inasmuch as the gift deed itself is illegal. He submits that indulgence be granted by this Court and respondents No. 6 be retrained to carry out the construction of water tank over the plot gifted by respondent No. 7.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶11

Admittedly, the suit for partition was filed by the petitioner under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is stated to be pending.

¶12

In the opinion of the Court, the injunction sought for by this Court can very well be claimed by the petitioner by moving an appropriate application in the partition suit which is pending before respondent No. 3.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such an application has already been moved but the same is not being considered by the respondent concerned. He thus prays that a direction be issued to respondent No. 3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending application for injunction at the earliest so that construction activities as sought to be undertaken by the respondent No. 6 are not proceeded with.

¶14

Considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that since the respondent No. 3 is seized with the partition suit, it would be appropriate to direct the said respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending injunction application of the petitioner within 10 days. A liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application before respondent No. 3 to prepone the date fixed and injunction application of the petitioner shall be considered on the date fixed or within 10 days on its own merit.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 17.7.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rammehar Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Smt. Anita Pandey and Another Vs the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and 5 Others

Sunil Sahgal vs Sanjay Gupta and Another

Sher Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Iqbal Khan vs Smt. Manju Bansal and Another

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

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