Disposed

Fakhrey Alam v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2023WRIC/38071/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer regarding an exchange of land property. The court directed the State respondent-2 to decide the pending recommendation within two months, with the offending order of respondent-3 suspended pending such decision, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to decide the recommendation within two months; order dated 04.07.2022 suspended.

Fakhrey Alam Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164464

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38071 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Fakhrey Alam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Javed Habib Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Javed Habib, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Gram Sabha.

¶7

The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 04.07.2022 & 26.09.2022 passed by respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Officer Chandausi, Sambhal i.e. Annexure no.13, 15 to the writ petition.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents concern not to disposes the petitioner from the land property Gata No.223 area 0/069 hectare situate in Village Akbarpur Chitauri, pergana and tehsil Chandausi district Sambhal."

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that proceedings under Section 101 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been initiated and the same has been proposed in favour of the petitioner by the Land Management Committee, upon which respondent no.4 reported vide report dated 28.05.2022 wherein entire facts with regard to plot nos.147, 152, 151 have been co-related with the plot no.223 which was proposed to be exchanged from plot no.151 pertains to the petitioner along with three other co-sharers and the application for exchange has been put forward before respondent no.3 by all co-sharers of plot no.151.

¶11

After receiving the report submitted by respondent no.4, the entire consideration has been made by respondent no.3 and the same was allowed vide order dated 29.06.2022 considering the nature of plot in question which has now been changed and no useful purpose is existing with regard to plot no.223 and directed for entering the exchange in the revenue records. In pursuance of

¶12

the order dated 29.06.2022, revenue records in shape of record of rights have been modified by way of entering the name of petitioner along other co-sharers against plot no.223 and plot no.151/1 has also been mentioned in pursuance of the same order passed by respondent no.3.

¶13

Vide order dated 04.07.2022, the order dated 29.06.2022 has been recalled by respondent no.3 considering the same as ex-parte, learned counsel for the petitioner sought the attention of the Court over order dated 04.07.2022 which impugned the present petition, wherein it is crystal clearly mentioned that the order dated 29.06.2022 has been passed over the submission made by District Government Counsel (Revenue). At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted the order dated 29.06.2022 which has been passed by the same authority after order dated 04.02022 through which the exchange as already ordered, has been sent to the respondent no.2 for seeking formal approval.

¶14

By bare perusal of the order dated 04.07.2022, it is crystal clear that the same is contrary to the order passed by the authority and once the entire proceedings have been taken in favour of the petitioner, under which circumstances, the order dated 04.07.2022 has been suo moto passed by respondent no.3, has not been answered while filing the counter affidavit preferred on behalf of the State-respondents, moreover, reliance has been taken up over the Government Orders dated 03.06.2016 and 06.07.2022 which provide for taking into cognizance the mandatory provisions contained under Section 77(J) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and no objection certificate was not obtained from the Irrigation Department.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed the submission as extended by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the bases of proposal made by Land Management Committee, report submitted by respondent no.4 and order dated 29.06.2022 passed by respondent no.3.

¶16

After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for both the parties, it is apparent from the records that the latest order passed by respondent no.3 on dated 26.09.2022 is also confirming the exchange made in favour of the petitioner and for the same, formal approval as sought from the respondent no.2, is still pending to be obtained.

¶17

Be that as it may, the respondent no.2 is hereby directed to

¶18

decide the recommendation sent through letter dated 26.09.2022 within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. By that time, the effect and operation of the order dated 04.07.2022 shall remain suspended.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 16.8.2023 Vivek Kr.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Fakhrey Alam v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakhrey Alam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 26 Others

Kusum Lata and Another Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Israwati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Israr Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Mahfoozur Rahman and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others