Disposed

Sita Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024WRIC/22715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenging recovery orders related to mortgage auction directed the Tehsildar to consider his request for release of deposited money within two months without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer an application before the Tehsildar for release of deposited money within two months.

Sita Ram vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:133628

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22715 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sita Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kapil Kumar Soni,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ayyub Khan holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the StateRespondents.

¶7

The case of the writ petitioner is that his father late Raghunath along with one Bhagirath son of Bhaiya Lal, who were agriculturist had jointly taken a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- for purchasing a Tractor bearing Registration No.UP94A7196 from Punjab National Bank, Branch Banpur, Tehsil Mehrani, Lalitpur and in order to avail the said financial assistance they had mortgaged the Arazis contained in Khata No.222, Arazi no.424, 427, 646, 647, 650, 688 total Rakba 0.788 hectare. According to the writ petitioner, the payment was not made as per the terms and conditions so stipulated therein, consequently a recovery citation purported to be under Rule 236 of the Rules framed under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 were issued fixing the date 22.04.2003 for an amount of Rs.1,25,760/-. According to the writ petitioner, the tractor in question was put to auction on 09.05.2003 and the possession whereof was also taken. Questioning the said action, the writ petitioner preferred C.M.W.P. No.19728 of 2003 (Raghunath Vs. State of U.P. & others), which came to be disposed of on 07.05.2003 requiring the writ petitioner to deposit the entire amount, and in the meantime, the recovery was kept in abeyance.It is also the case of the writ petitioner that in order to make good the loan, the Arazis which were mortgaged were also put to auction. According to the writ petitioner as stated in paragraph-19, post auction writ petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.29,000/- totalling to Rs.49,000/-.

¶8

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi as well as the order dated 22.08.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mehrani, District Lalitpur as well as to release

¶9

the amount which has already been deposited to the tune of Rs.49,000/-.

¶10

At this juncture, Mohd. Ayyub Khan, holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar on instructions from his client does not intend to press relief no.'a', as according to him, the relief which has been confined is relatable to a direction for refund of Rs.49,000/-, which has been deposited post auction.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that in case, it is the stand of the writ petitioner that he is foregoing his relief with respect to the challenge raised to the orders dated 11.05.2006 and 22.08.2005, thus he has no objection to the same. However, according to him, the writ petitioner may approach the Tehsildar Mehrauni district Lalitpur (Respondent no.4).

¶12

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of granting the liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appropriate application/ representation before the fourth respondent annexing therewith the self attested copy of the writ petition and the proof of the deposit and the Tehsildar thereafter shall consider the request of the writ petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of of the receipt of the same. In case, the fourth respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be addressed by some other authority then the papers be transmitted to him with due communication to the writ petition.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶14

Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 N.S.Rathour

¶16

(Vikas Budhwar, J)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sita Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M Ram Manohar Lohia Mahavidyalaya and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

Jasveer Singh @ Amit vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod and 4 Others vs State of Up and 13 Others

Anjani Kumar vs State of Up and 8 Others

Arvind Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Kumar and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others