Disposed

Amar Jeet Kaur v. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Lucknow Division,Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024CMRA/19/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application filed by the applicant seeking continuation of interim protection against dispossession granted during the pendency of a writ petition in 2010. The Court, noting no opposition, extended the protection until the appellate authority decides the appeal regarding land ownership under Section 11(2).

What did the court decide?

Interim protection against dispossession granted on 30.4.2010 continued till the decision of the pending appeal by the appellate authority.

Amar Jeet Kaur vs Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Lucknow… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22676

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 19 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amar Jeet Kaur Opposite Party :- Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Lucknow Division,Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Chandra Sitapuri

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri S. C. Sitapuri, learned counsel for the reviewapplicant as well as Sri Girish Chandra Verma for the respondents.

¶8

By means of the present review application it has been submitted that this Court had directed Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner expeditiously, say within a period of three months but protection has not been extended to the petitioner which was granted during pendency of the said writ petition. He submits that he could not appear before this Court when the matter was taken up due to his engagement in another Court and, therefore, could not apprise this Court about the protection granted to the petitioner in the said writ petition.

¶9

Learned counsel or the opposite parties also does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶10

It is noticed that proceedings under Section 11(2) were initiated by the petitioner alleging that he has ownership and title over the said land which has been perfected due to adverse possession but the Prescribed Authority has rejected his contentions against which the appeal is still pending with the appellate authority.

¶11

During the appeal no protection was granted to the petitioner and it is in aforesaid circumstances that he filed present petition seeking protection during pendency of the appeal and this Court vide by means of its order dated 30.4.2010 had provided "In view of the above, till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute" and, hence, a prayer has been made to extend the interim protection granted by this Court to continue till decision of the appeal.

¶12

Accordingly, this review application is being disposed of with the consent of the parties in the following terms:-

¶13

Considering that the petitioner was protected since 30.4.2010

¶14

and this Court had directed the appeal to be decided expeditiously, it is provided that the protection granted by this Court on 30.4.2010 shall continue till the order is passed by the appellate authority in terms of previous orders of this Court dated 19.1.2024.

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 14.3.2024

¶17

RKM.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amar Jeet Kaur v. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Lucknow Division,Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Jeet Kaur v. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Lucknow Division,Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maulana Abdul Rab Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Lucknow

Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Food and Civil Supply Lko and Ors.

Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs A.D.O. Panchayat Faizabad and 3 Ors.

M/S Krishangini Enterprises, Lucknow Thru. Proprietors, Sri. Udai Agarwal Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Lucknow and Others

Sumit Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 8 Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others