Dismissed

Kanhaiya Lal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Unnao and Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024/1050/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought quashing of orders rejecting an application for incorporating an alleged 1985 decision in favor of the petitioner's father. The court found no record of said order and noted a delay of over 26 years from notification, declining to intervene and dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No relief was granted in the instant proceedings, with recourse to other available provisions left open for the petitioners.

Kanhaiya Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. District… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73193

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1050 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Lal And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Unnao And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.

¶7

By means of the instant petition the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the order passed in an appeal dated 08.09.2016 and the order passed by the D.D.C on 23.07.2024.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that during the consolidation operations an order was passed in favour of the father of the petitioners dated 08.04.1985. However, the said order was not incorporated, accordingly, the petitioners after the death of their father had moved an application seeking incorporation of the order dated 08.04.1985. The said application came to be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal which also came to be dismissed and later the matter was taken up before the D.D.C which also by means of its order dated 08.09.2016 rejected the revision. It is urged that the order which was passed in favour of the father of the petitioners dated 08.04.1985 ought to have been incorporated in the records by the respondent authorities and it is only after the death of the father the petitioners became aware, thereafter they moved an application for getting the same incorporated which has not been appropriately considered by the authorities.

¶9

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

¶10

Apparently, this Court finds that the initial order which is said to be in favour of the petitioners father dated 08.04.1985 has not been placed on record. It has also not been indicated in the petition as to what is the nature of the order dated 08.04.1985. It is not disputed that notification under Section 52(1) of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 was already made. In such circumstances,

¶11

where the three courts have categorically noticed that there is no record relating to the order allegedly passed in favour of the father of the petitioners dated 08.04.1985 and there being no supporting documents to indicate that how that order affected the rights of the petitioners. This being considered by the three authorities that after the notification under Section 52, the application has been moved by the petitioners after more than 26 years and in such circumstances, the Court has declined to intervene cannot be faulted.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to take recourse to such provision as may be available to him.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Harshita

¶14

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanhaiya Lal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Unnao and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Unnao and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abbas Vs District Dy.Director of Consolidation/D.M.Shravasti and Ors.

Mahender Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P.through Collector Kheri and Ors.

Gireesh Kumar Vs Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Nighasan, Kheri

Sanjeevani Ayurvedic Medical College, Amroha Thru. Shri Prashant Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Lucknow and Others

Vijay Laxhmi Vs Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Milkipur, Faizabad and Another

Keshav Prasad and Others Vs Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow and Others