Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023WRIC/38758/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning a land dispute over Chak Road (Gata No. 94), the Allahabad High Court directed the District Magistrate, Bareilly, to expedite the decision on the petitioner's pending representation after hearing adjoining parties and examining revenue records within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Magistrate/Collector, Bareilly to decide the petitioner's pending representation after hearing adjoining parties and examining revenue records within three months.

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38758 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Yashpal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tiwari,Pankaj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 11.11.2022 appended as annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, which is said to be pending before respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate/Collector, Bareilly.

¶7

From perusal of record of the writ petition, it transpires that there is some dispute regarding location of chak road covered by Gata No. 94 as per the revenue map.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the last several years, the said chak road was existing on the spot and in the year 2011 also a writ petition was filed by the father of the petitioner being Writ C No. 24414 of 2011 (Shyam Lal Prajapati vs State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2011, directing the Sub Divisional Officer concerned to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the aforesaid directions, the grievance has not been redressed and on 11.11.2022, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate concerned with the same grievance and his request is pending in the form of representation, filed as annexure No. 9 to the writ petition.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the record, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction

¶12

to respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate/Collector, Bareilly to consider the grievance of the petitioner as raised by filing application/representation dated 11.11.2022 (annexure No. 9 to the writ petition), after hearing the parties concerned of the adjoining Gatas and after examining the case of the petitioner as per the revenue records.

¶13

The District Magistrate concerned will conclude the proceedings and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this Court before him.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Sazia

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashpal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dayashankar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Raveesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others