Partly allowed

Board of Foreign Mission v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024WRIC/22167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a revisional order that was found to be laconic and failed to consider arguments raised by the petitioner regarding revenue entries. The matter was remanded to the revisional court for fresh consideration with specific reasons after giving a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revisional order set aside; matter remanded to revisional court for fresh decision afresh after hearing parties.

Board of Foreign Mission vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177681

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22167 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Board Of Foreign Mission Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai,Sharad Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghuvansh Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shivang, Advocate holding brief of Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶8

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 12.2.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) 1st Meerut Mandal Meerut (respondent no.2 in Revision/Case No.1697/2022 (computerized Case No.C202211000001697) (Board of Foreign Mission Versus Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & another) (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

¶9

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 19.9.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No.2790/2015, 10517/2014 (Board of Foreign Mission Vs. State of U.P. & anr.) in proceedings u/s 33/39/225 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, insofar as it relates to Khasra no. 318M area 0.089 hectare, Khasra No.327M, area 0.139 hectare and Khasra No.328, area 0.379 hectare situated in village Jatwara, Ghaziabad (Annexure-2 to the writ petition)."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, revenue entry in favour of the petitioner has been partly allowed and against which order, revision was preferred. The revision has been rejected by order dated 12.2.2024, which is at page 20 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the order of the revisional court would demonstrate that argument raised by petitioner before the revisional court has neither been considered nor decided. It is submitted that cursory finding has been recorded by the revisional court that no legal argument raised in the revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional order is itself laconic as the reason for rejecting the argument, which have already been noticed in the impugned order have not been

¶11

specified.

¶12

Learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid fact and have submitted that the matter may be remanded back to revisional court for decision afresh.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection, in case, the matter is remanded back to revisional court for decision afresh.

¶14

In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 12.2.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) 1st Meerut Mandal, Meerut (respondent no.2 in Revision/Case No.1697/2022 (computerized Case No.C202211000001697) (Board of Foreign Mission Versus Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & another) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the revisional court being respondent no.2Additional Commissioner (Administration) 1st Meerut Mandal, Meerut for decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties and by recording specific reason for the argument raised by both the parties.

¶15

The writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 13.11.2024 D. Tamang

¶17

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Board of Foreign Mission v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Board of Foreign Mission v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Aniket Maheshwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Others

Vikrant vs State of U.P.

Shahjad vs State of U.P. and Another

C/M Kisan Inter College Agwanpur vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahesh Kumar Tulsiani vs State of U.P.

Bhopendra Singh vs State of U.P.