Disposed

Javed Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023WRIC/6612/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking restoration of Waqf property status and intervention regarding pending applications. It held that disputed facts could not be adjudicated once the authority had decided the representation, leaving the petitioner with statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; the petitioner is at liberty to avail other legal remedies.

Javed Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130661-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6612 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Javed Akhtar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rafiuddin Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rafiuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Subhra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-

¶8

"A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Moradabad to restore the status of Waqf property as recorded in the revenue record in pursuance of registered Waqf deed dated 28.08.1922 and 19.06.1935 situated at Village Bhojpur Dharampur, District Moradabd and Village Shyampur Hadipur, District Moradabad as registered in the office of U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board as Waqf No.41-Ex-2 Moradabad and Waqf No.115-Ex-2 Moradabad.

¶9

B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Moradabad to pass an appropriate and suitable order on the application of the petitioner dated 14.10.2014, 26.12.2020 and 20.01.2023 pending before him within a specified time bound period as directed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶10

On the matter being taken up on 29.5.2023, the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:-

¶11

"Despite two opportunities having been granted to the State counsel to seek instructions in the matter, it has been stated by the Standing Counsel that the instructions have not yet been received. The first order asking the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions was passed on 11.4.2023 and the second order was passed on 15.5.2023.

¶12

Put up again as fresh on 3.7.2023 before appropriate Bench, on which date the District Magistrate, Moradabad shall be personally present in the Court alongwith his personal affidavit explaining the reasons for not having sent the instructions to the Standing Counsel and also with the original records.

¶13

The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard with this Bench."

¶14

In response to the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Moradabad is present along with the personal affidavit. Along

¶15

with the personal affidavit, order dated 23.6.2023 is also appended by which the representation of the petitioner has been decided.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that highly disputed facts have been urged before this Court, which cannot be adjudicated under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Once the District Magistrate, Moradabad has already decided the representation of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail the remedy as available in law.

¶17

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. The presence of the District Magistrate, Moradabad is dispensed with.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 S.P.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Javed Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary(Home)and 4 Others

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary(Home)and 4 Others

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary(Home)and 4 Others

Shablu Vs State of U P and 3 Others

M/S Krishna Marbles and Granite Nagla and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

New Era International Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others