Disposed

Nisar Ahmad Khan and Another v. State of Up and 6 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024WRIC/11838/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a land dispute where revenue and forest departments offered conflicting findings on a sawmill's location. The court stayed the matter, directing the authority to scrutiny pending eviction proceedings and decide via a reasoned order within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petition finally disposed of; liberty to file representation to respondent no.2 for reasoned decision within one month.

Nisar Ahmad Khan and Another vs State of Up and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111100-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11838 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nisar Ahmad Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 6.

¶7

In view of the proposed order, issuance of notice to the respondent no.7 is dispensed with.

¶8

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are tenure holder of Gata No.137. It has further been contended that by using papers of the title of Gata No.137 and playing fraud, respondent no.7 has obtained a license for running a sawmill, whereas, actually the sawmill is installed on Gata No.136.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also informed that the concerned Gram Samaj, for evicting the respondent no.7 from Gata No.136 which is a public utility land, has already started eviction proceedings under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and the said proceedings are pending before the concerned Tehsildar.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis

¶11

of instructions has submitted that the sawmill has been installed on Gata No.137.

¶12

We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and we find a very peculiar situation in this case. On the one hand, the revenue authority on the basis of measurement carried out on spot have found that the sawmill of the respondent no.7 is on Gata No.136 and that is why they have initiated eviction proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, but on the other hand, the authorities of the forest department have somehow concluded that the sawmill is installed on Gata No.137.

¶13

We find it appropriate that the respondent no.2 must scrutinize all the relevant facts including eviction proceedings filed before the concerned Tehsildar, and thereafter, he must take a reasoned decision in this matter.

¶14

Accordingly, this writ petition is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an exhaustive representation before the respondent no.2 raising their all grievances with a further direction upon the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the said representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month from the date of submission of the representation.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 Dev/-

¶16

( Manjive Shukla,J. ) ( Shekhar B. Saraf,J. )

¶17

Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nisar Ahmad Khan and Another v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ahmad Khan and Another v. State of Up 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

Similar cases

Seema Mishra vs State of Up and 5 Others

Shyam Sundar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Sunderdevi Alias Sunderdai vs State of Up and 5 Others

Dawate-E Islami Hind Trust Masjid Bibi Ulfat vs State of Up and 4 Others

Vipendra Singh vs Union of India and Another

M/S Dwivedi Constructions and Another vs State of U.P. and Another