Disposed

Ismail Khan v. State of U P and 7 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023WRIC/4044/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a remand order in merger of gatas proceedings, directing the Sub Divisional Officer to conclude the inquiry expeditiously within six months after affording parties a full opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directing Sub Divisional Officer to conclude proceedings within six months after affording full hearing to concerned parties.

Ismail Khan Vs State of U P and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4044 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Ismail Khan Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Nand Kishore Mishra along with Ms. Shilpa Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶7

(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 00851 of 2019 (Computerized Case No. C201907000000851), under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as Case No. 00437 of 2018 (Imran Khan vs Ismail Khan and others), under section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

¶8

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No. 4 to measure and demarcate Gata No. 434, area 1.878 hectare belonging to the petitioner.

¶9

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 28.06.2019, the proceedings under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were finalized by the Sub Divisional Officer concerned, against which revision was preferred, which has been illegally allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) by the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 and the matter has been unnecessarily remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer. He submits that since the proceedings were finalized long ago, remand order is unjustified.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the remand order is noninjurious to the petitioner, inasmuch as the revisional court has clearly provided that the parties should be provided sufficient opportunity of leading evidence and hearing and the matter has been directed to be decided again after calling for a fresh report.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court finds that the revisional court has thoroughly discussed the merger of areas of adjoining gatas affecting the rights of various parties. It has further been observed with reference to the order sheet of the original proceedings that without there being any order on the order sheet calling for a report from the office of Consolidation, some report was brought on record and the matter was hurriedly disposed of.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the proceedings various sale deeds have already been executed.

¶13

Be that as it may, since valuable rights of the parties of adjoining gatas are involved in the proceedings and would be affected, without interfering in the order of remand, which has been challenged in the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer to conclude the proceedings pursuant to the remand order most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Sazia

¶15

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

Ismail Khan v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail Khan v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hari Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Leellu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ishwar Chand and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Tairunnesha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others