Dismissed

Palla Das v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2023WRIC/38806/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mutation of land and directions regarding a revenue application. The court noted the petitioner cited the wrong legal provision (Section 65 instead of 67-A) and directed them to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to file a fresh correction application under the correct section within two weeks.

Palla Das Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225522

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38806 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Palla Das Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Pandey,Kaushal Kishore Mani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sridhar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶8

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nakur, District- Saharnpur, respondent no.3 to the name of the petitioner may be directed to be mutated in the revenue record over Khasra No.263 area 0-3-0 biswa pukhta situated at Mauja Khajoor Kheri, Pargana- Sarsawa, Tahsil- Nakur, District- Saharanpur which was reserved for public abadi land.

¶9

ii. to call for a progress report from Sub-Divisional Officer, Nakur, DistrictSaharanpur, respondent no.3 on the application of the petitioner under Section 65 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition)

¶10

iii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nakur, District- Saharanpur, respondent no.3 to pass appropriate order within stipulated period on the application of the petitioner under Section 65 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition)."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application has been filed before respondent no.3 for the benefit of Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submitted that by mistake the provision has been wrongly mentioned in the application as Section 65 in place of Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶12

Mr. Shridhar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel submitted that considering the averment made in the application dated 28.10.2022, which is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, petitioner should file proper application before respondent no.3 rather application which has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.

¶13

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the

¶14

parties and perused the record.

¶15

The instant petition is finally disposed of directing the petitioner to file fresh application mentioning the correct provision of law within period of two weeks from today before respondent no.3 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, TahsilNakur, District- Saharanpur, which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within period of four months from the date of filing of fresh application along with the certified copy of this order before respondent no.3.

¶16

Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Rameez

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Palla Das v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palla Das v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Indrasen Rai Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Ashish and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhola Nath (Since Deceased) and 12 others Vs State of U.P. and 9 others

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others