Disposed

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

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023WRIC/39603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging interim orders under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which restrained construction on disputed land. The Court found no need to interfere despite alleged compromise directions for the lower authority to conclude proceedings within eight months to prevent complicating the issue by further construction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; direction issued to Sub-Divisional Officer to conclude proceedings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within eight months.

Dayashankar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39603 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Dayashankar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh,Ajeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 26.03.2022 and 26.08.2022 passed by respondent No. 2/Sub Divisional Officer, Shahganj, district Jaunpuar in Case No. T202214360101751 (Mangala Prasad and others vs Ram Manorath and others), under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 with regard to Gata No. 108 area 0.105 hectare, situated in Mauja Muzaffar Nagar, Pargana Anguli, Tehsil Shahganj, district Jaunpur. A further prayer has been made in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority/respondent No. 5 to take appropriate action with further direction to conclude/decide the present controversy within a stipulated time period.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the proceedings under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed at the behest of private respondents before the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahganj, Jaunpur, interim order dated 26.03.2022 was passed restraining both the parties from raising new constructions on the spot. He further submitted that an application has been filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the said order dated 26.03.2022, the same was rejected by order dated 26.08.2022. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge before this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that certain compromise had taken place in between the parties and that in view thereof, the aforesaid orders, which have been challenged in the present writ petition, could not have been passed.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that since proceedings under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are still pending and an interim order restraining further constructions is existing, in case the impugned orders are set aside, the same would result in raising construction on the spot by either of the parties, which will further

¶10

complicate the matter and will not be in the interest of justice.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is required in the impugned orders dated 26.03.2022 and 26.08.2022 as by such interference, the parties would be at liberty to raise construction over the land, which may change the nature of land in dispute and will further complicate the matter.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahganj, Jaunpur to conclude the proceedings under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously, after hearing all the parties concerned, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Sazia

¶14

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayashankar Dubey 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

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

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