Disposed

Jaynath v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023WRIC/25105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to stop construction on disputed land while partition proceedings under Section 116 were pending. The court emphasized the responsibility of the SDM to expedite the process and ensure compliance with the existing status quo order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; proceedings to be finalised expeditiously with stakeholder participation; SDM to ensure compliance with status quo order.

Jaynath Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Partition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25105 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Jaynath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Ram Pandey,Brijesh Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

The Advocates are abstaining from judicial work.

¶6

We have proceeded to examine the record in question.

¶7

Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing to the respondent nos.3 and 4 to maintain the law and order and stop the further construction of respondent no.5 upon the place in dispute in compliance of the order dated 24.5.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nichlaul, Distt. Maharajganj till completing the partition proceeding between the parties in the said Araji No.35 Rakba 0.320 hect."

¶9

This much is reflected from the record that the petitioner is a share holder of Rakba 0.0456 hect. from Araji No.35 Rakba 0.320 hect. The petitioner has two brothers namely Virendra Nath and Baijnath. After the death of Baijnath, the names of his legal heirs have been mutated in the revenue record. The petitioner's brother namely Virendra Nath had executed a sale deed in favour of respondent no.5. After purchasing the share of Virendra Nath the respondent no.5 had started to construct a house forcibly without completing the partition between the share holders of Arazi No.35 Rakba 0.320 hect. It is averred that partition between the parties have not yet been made till date either by mutual consent or through legal procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "the Code") for division of holding before the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, who has directed for status quo on 24.5.2023 till the finalisation of the proceeding. It is alleged that inspite of aforesaid direction, the respondents are making constructions and as such this Court may come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the proceeding under Section 116 of the Code has not been

¶11

finalised as yet, the same shall be finalised in accordance with law expeditiously but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter. Needless to say, it is paramount responsibility of the SDM concerned to atleast ensure compliance of his own order dated 24.5.2023.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 SP/

¶13

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

Jaynath v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaynath v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Mahaveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bidya Niwas Chauhan Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Suvidha Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar Dohare and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sarvdev Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dilip Kumar Rampat Kewat Vs Union of India and 3 Others