Disposed

Shiv Kumar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023WRIC/24378/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition regarding encroachment on agricultural land. Instead of issuing a mandamus, the Court directed the petitioners to file a comprehensive application before the competent authority within 15 days, with the authority to decide within four months.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of petition permitting filing of fresh application within 15 days with officer to decide within 4 months.

Shiv Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148830

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24378 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.C. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Shri K.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri L. M. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Shri Azad Rai, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3.

¶7

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the notice upon private respondent is being dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition the petitioners are seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Assistant Collector, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur to take expeditious action in respect of the encroachment caused by the private respondent over Arazi No. 369, area 0.069 hectare; Arazi No. 370 area 0.032 hectare; Arazi No. 449B area 0.906 hectare situated at village Sonari, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that purpose of filing this writ petition would be served if appropriate directions are issued to the competent authority to pass appropriate orders on the pending application of the petitioner.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid proposition and submits that petitioners may prefer a fresh application ventilating their grievances before the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar which shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law.

¶11

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 permitting the petitioners to file a comprehensive application clearly setting out their claim within a period of 15 days from today before the competent authority.

¶12

In the eventuality of filing such a representation before the competent authority, it is expected that competent authority shall proceed to decide the representation after considering all aspects of the matter, expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of service of application along with certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶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 competent authority under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶15

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

Shiv Kumar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 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

Shweta Khokhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Radhika Devi Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Susheel Kumar Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishambhar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mushafir Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others