Disposed

Jhun Jhun Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2024/2704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting interim relief and maintenance of status quo in a land dispute. Court allowed withdrawal of the writ petition as not pressed without liberty for future appellate application.

What did the court decide?

writ petition dismissed as not pressed; petitioner permitted to withdraw with liberty to move application for interim relief in the appellate court without liberty to file in writ court.

Jhun Jhun Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34135

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2704 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jhun Jhun Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 2/Additional Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya by which the interim relief application filed along with the appeal has been rejected and with a further prayer to direct the respondents to maintain status-quo over the land Gata No. 607(ka) area 0.398 Hectare situated at village Jamunipur, Pargana Amasin, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya during the pendency of the appeal filed under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed whereby the respondent no. 2 has refused to grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner despite the fact that the respondent nos. 4 to 20 have started collecting material on the land in dispute for raising construction.

¶8

It is further submitted that the appeal has been admitted and the interim relief application of the petitioner has been refused to be granted without condoning the delay in the appeal.

¶9

On being asked whether the petitioner has taken the ground as mentioned in para 10 & 14 of the writ petition regarding the action on the part of respondent nos. 4 to 20 as mentioned above, it has been replied that the same has not been placed before the appellate court.

¶10

Once the petitioner had not brought all these facts which has been mentioned in the present writ petition before the appellate court then the finding given by the appellate court in the impugned order is not erroneous.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition as dismissed as not pressed with liberty to move an application for injunction/interim relief before the appellate court bringing all these facts and on the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner, a direction may be issued to

¶12

the respondent no. 2 to decide the same within a stipulated time as this Court may fix.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶15

It is always open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application in the pending appeal for which no liberty is required.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Nitesh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jhun Jhun Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhun Jhun Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandra Bali and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ram Shankar and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ram Achal and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ravendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Raebareli and 9 Others

Leelavati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sonkali Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others