Disposed

Rajkaran Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024WRIC/10084/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered an enquiry by the collector regarding the destruction of sugar cane crops on disputed land. The court expressed doubt about the unripeness of the crop on the alleged date and limited its decision to the crops, directing the petitioner to seek other remedies for land rights.

What did the court decide?

The matter was listed for the Fourth Week of January, 2025, and the Collector was directed to conduct an enquiry regarding the destruction of crops.

Rajkaran Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10084 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajkaran Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neelam Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

1. Learned Standing Counsel responds to our earlier order dated 26.11.2024 by informing us on the basis of instructions from the Tehsildar, namely, Sukhveer Singh that the suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been dismissed on 4.11.2024 but the learned counsel for the petitioner refutes the factum of dismissal of suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 4.11.2024, as according to her, suit was not fixed before the court concerned on the said date. In response, learned Standing Counsel has an order dated 4.11.2024 of the competent court rejecting case no. 10763 of 2023 under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶6

2. As regards the crops existing on the land in dispute, submission is firstly that the petitioner was in illegal possession secondly, the sugar cane crop was there but it had not ripened for harvesting, therefore, the land was cultivated by the official opposite parties, meaning-thereby, the unripe sugar cane was destroyed in the process of tilling the land.

¶7

3. We asked the Tehsilar, who is present in Court as to when this was done, he stated that it was done on 14.112.024. We find it very difficult to accept that on 14.11.2024, the sugar cane crop would not be ripe for harvesting. The crushing season as far as we understand starts in October so far as the sugar mills are concerned and the sugar cane is sown sometimes in April -May.

¶8

4. The matter requires enquiry.

¶9

5. Let the Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri get an enquiry conducted as to the crops existing on the land in dispute and in what manner they were destroyed whether the procedure prescribed in such cases, where the possession is illegal but the crops had been sown, was followed or not as, ordinarily the farmer would be permitted to harvest the crop and if he does not do so then alternative procedure of harvesting at the behest of

¶10

authorities itself at the appropriate stage would be undertaken and the crop so harvested would be put to auction etc. and proceeds be deposit under the particular accounts head. We would like to have the result of such enquiry by the next date.

¶11

6. List the matter in the Fourth Week of January, 2025.

¶12

7. It is made clear that our orders shall not be seen as authorizing the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question in any manner, as we are only concerned with the crops, which the petitioner had sown and this fact was admitted by the Tehsildar who is present before the Court and how that has been dealt with whether in this process petitioner had any rights in respect of the crops and only to that extent we will proceed in the matter. As regards the rights claimed by the petitioner in respect of the land in question, he may pursue other remedy as may be prescribed.

¶13

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶14

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 A nuj S ing h

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajkaran Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkaran Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 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

M/S Lalitpur Power Generation Co. Ltd. Lalitpur Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr.Amit Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Siddiq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Nandlal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Ashok Kumar and Another vs U.O.I.Thru.Its Secy.Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs(Pradhan Mantri Gramin Awas Yojna) Delhi.

Amaravati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Mahima and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 Others