Petitioner alleged private parties sought to dispossess him of Plot No. 143, Village Bilauti, Mathura. Respondent affidavit showed authorities had acted, including enquiry into guardian appointment, and a partition suit under Section 116 UP Revenue Code had been filed. Petitioner conceded no cause of action survived; petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:112764
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1213 of 2024 Petitioner :- Anurag Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satyendra Nath Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed primarily raising a grievance that certain private parties are seeking to dispossess the petitioner from land bearing Plot No. 143, situate in Village Bilauti, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura, which the petitioner claims to be his own.
3. It is sought to be asserted that the plot in question, was initially recorded in the name of one Lal Chand, and a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2008 was executed by the aforesaid Lal Chand, in respect of an area of 0.334 hectare, of the said plot, in favour of Bhudev Prasad, father of the petitioner herein.
4. It is submitted that the aforesaid Bhudev Prasad, the father of the petitioner died on 21.06.2013, leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir and representative.
5. It is further stated that previously, one Birya Devi wife of Lal Chand, was the guardian of the petitioner, and upon her death, on 09.02.2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chhata, District Mathura, was appointed as guardian of the petitioner, and in this regard a report of the Revenue Inspector dated 16.02.2023 has been referred.
6. It is asserted that certain third parties are seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, and despite applications having been filed before the concerned authorities by the petitioner, and also by his uncle, namely, Tej Singh, no action has been taken.
7. Pursuant to the previous order, an affidavit dated 12.07.2024, of the respondent no.4 has been placed on record, wherein the factual controversy relating to Plot No. 143, has been explained in the following manner:
"4. That the controversy involved in the present writ petition relates to Plot No. 143 area 4.5860 hectare of Khata No. 106 situated at Village-Bilauti, Tehsil Chhata, District- Mathura which stands recorded in the revenue record in the name of petitioner as a co-tenure holder along with various other cotenure holders namely Bhagwan Singh son of Prabhu Dayal resident of the same village, fairo Estates Pvt. Ltd. resident of 33/23E Krishna Nagar Balkeshwar Agra through its Director Pankaj Agrawal son of Mahendra Agrawal Resident of 33/07/2A Basant Market Balkeshwar Agra, Garvit Agrawal son of Praveen Kumar Agrawal resident of 424 Gandhi Chowk Hathras in front of P.K. Industrial State Bank, Jai Bhagwan son of Yad Ram Goyal resident of B798 Green Field Colony Sector 33 Faridabad Haryana, Vrinda Highway City through its Partner Luxmi Narain son of Deep Chand Resident of 96 Vishwa Luxmi Nagar Extension Mathura and Partner Ashish Verma son of Rakesh Verma Resident of A 140 Sector 19 Noida Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Prasad as co-tenure holder and the name of his grandmother Virma Devi widow of Lal Chand was mentioned as the guardian of Anurag, the petitioner as he was minor at the relevant time."
8. As regards the order dated 09.02.2023, stated to have been passed by the Revenue Inspector, Chumuha, recording the SubDivisional Officer, Chhata as the guardian of the petitioner, it has been stated that an enquiry regarding the same has been ordered, and a show cause notice has been issued to the concerned Revenue Inspector, calling for his explanation, and a report in this regard is awaited.
9. It has further been pointed out that during the intervening period, a suit for partition under Section 116 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, has been instituted on behalf of the petitioner, and the same has been registered as Case No.T202401500305313, in which an order has been passed on 11.07.2024, directing issuance of notices, and further restraining the defendants therein, from transferring, alienating the property in dispute, and from raising any construction over the same till the next date fixed in the case, which is 25.07.2024.
10. Having regard to the stand taken on behalf of the State respondent, in the affidavit of the respondent No. 4, as aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the necessary action having been taken by the State authorities, and the petitioner having invoked the statutory remedy by filing a suit for partition, no cause of action survives for pursuing the matter any further.
11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Priya
[Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.]
Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's grievance of threatened dispossession from Plot No. 143 required further action given State measures and a pending partition suit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anurag
State Of Up
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
