Partly allowed

Onkar Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024/10832/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the impleadment of three individuals as additional respondents. It disposed of the writ petition regarding incorrect entries in the family register, directing the Assistant Development Officer to decide the pending correction application within four weeks without delving into the merits.

What did the court decide?

The application for impleadment was allowed. The remaining writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the pending application within four weeks.

Onkar Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1107

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10832 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Mishra

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lucknow And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Order on impleadment application

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 5.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has today filed an application for impleadment of several persons as respondent no. 7, 8 & 9 in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 13.12.2023 which is taken on record.

¶11

Learned Standing counsel states that he does not intend to file any objection to the same.

¶12

On due consideration, the application is allowed.

¶13

Let Sri Shivam, Ms. Vandana @ Baby & Sri Anushthan Nath be impleaded as respondents no. 7, 8 & 9 during the course of the day.

¶14

Order on memo of writ petition

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 5.

¶16

Notice on behalf of respondent no. 6 has been accepted by Sri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.

¶17

No notice need be issued to the respondents no. 7, 8 & 9 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶18

With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶19

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for correction of the family register belonging to the petitioner by deleting the name of unwanted persons. In this case, respondents no. 7, 8 & 9, considering Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter

¶20

referred to as "Rules, 1970")

¶21

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the names of the respondents no. 7, 8 & 9 have erroneously been included in the family register. He contends that Rule 5 of the Rules, 1970 provide that the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) on an application made to him in this behalf may order the correction of any existing entry in the family register and the Secretary of the Gaon Sabha shall then correct the Register accordingly.

¶22

The contention is that the petitioner has already filed an application before the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) for correction/deletion of the names as per the application dated 08.02.2022, a copy of which is annexure 17 to the writ petition which is pending for consideration and no orders have been passed till date. He prays that suitable orders in accordance with law be passed by the competent authority to which learned Standing counsel has no objection.

¶23

Accordingly, considering that the application of the petitioner for correction of the entry in the family register has been filed to the competent authority i.e Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) on 08.02.2022, a copy of which is annexure 17 to the writ petition which is still pending at the end of the competent authority as such, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority i.e respondent no.5 to decide the pending application of the petitioner in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned provided there is no legal impediment within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶24

While sending a certified copy of this order, the petitioner shall again send a copy of the application dated 08.02.2022.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 Pachhere/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Onkar Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lucknow 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

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Govil Vs Suresh Chandra and Another

Bhagwan Din Vs S.D.O. Unnao and Others

Ragini Singhal @ Ragini Gupta Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and Another

Brij Kishore Singh Higher Secondary School Harpalpur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt. Hardoi and Ors.

Sri Jai Devi Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Thr.Secy. Obj.Filed Vs State of U.P.through Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance L

Sri Jai Devi Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.Thr.Secy. Obj.Filed Vs State of U.P.through Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance L