Dismissed

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023WRIC/25910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to prevent respondent interference in possession while lease cancellation proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were pending. The Court held that since the proceeding was pending before the competent authority, it could not intervene via writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to press the pending proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in accordance with law.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192994

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25910 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rakesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Shankar Choubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Krishna Kant Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. V.S. Choubey, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Govind Kumar Saxana, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh for respondent no.5, Land Management Committee.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner who have granted lease in the year 1974 and respondent no.6 was also granted lease for the same plot hence proceeding for cancellation of lease of respondent No.6 was initiated at the instance of petitioner's father and matter came before the Revisional Court at the instance of the petitioner's father. He submitted that Revisional Court vide order dated 18.3.2013 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 3.12.2011 and remanded the matter back before the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh relating to cancellation of lease of respondent No.6 according to the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. He further submitted that in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Revisional Court, proceeding is pending before respondent no.3. He submitted that proceeding has not been concluded but private-respondent no.6 is interfering with the possession of the petitioner hence direction be issued that respondent no.6 may not interfere in the possession of the petitioner during pendency of the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

¶8

Mr. Govind Kumar Saxana, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh for respondent no.5, Land Management Committee submitted that proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is pending before the Court concerned, as such, petitioner should press the pending proceeding in accordance with law.

¶9

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶10

There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is pending before the Court concerned.

¶11

Since the proceeding is pending before the Court, as such, the mandamus in respect to the possession of the petitioner cannot be issued by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

Writ petition is dismissed , however, petitioner should press the pending proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 Vandana Y.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and 5 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

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

Sahab Singh Vs the Additional Commissioner and 3 Others

Inerdev and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P. and 20 Others

Sarifuddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Krishma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others