This single judge dismissal holds that no interference is warranted in the present petition as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the pending writ petition regarding the alleged sale of land.
The writ petition was dismissed without granting any specific relief other than directing the petitioner to approach the existing pending petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2769 of 2023
Petitioner :- Algu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
When there was a declaratory decree passed under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the petitioner filed an application for recalling of that decree. When the decree was recalled on 24.12.2008, aggrieved thereof, the private respondents filed a Revision which was dismissed on 10.6.2008. Thereafter, the private respondents filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35772 of 2009 (Mahendra Nath Singh vs. State of U.P. & others) and in this writ petition, on 20.7.2009, following order was passed:-
"Sri Krishna Kumar Chaurasia, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. He prays for and is allowed a week's time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to respondent no. 3. Steps may be taken within a week. Upon steps being taken office will issue notices fixing a date in the week commencing 14th September, 2009. Petition may be listed on the date mentioned in the notice.
Till further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 24.12.2008 and 10.6.2009 passed by additional Sub Divisional Officer and the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur respectively shall remain stayed."
It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the order passed in the writ petition, the petitioners in that writ petition and the respondent no. 6 in the instant writ petition were selling the land.
Learned Standing Counsel states that if that is the case, the petitioner may move an application in the pending writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35772 of 2009 (Mahendra Nath Singh vs. State of U.P. & others).
Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition.
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the selling of the land by the respondent no. 6, then he may file an application in the above mentioned writ petition.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2023 PK
(Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is warranted in the instant petition when the remedy regarding land selling lies in a pending writ petition.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy available for the alleged violation.
Algu
State Of U.P.
Siddhartha Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
