Dismissed

Harilal Yadav v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024WRIC/24092/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking delivery of possession of demarcated land. Instead of addressing merits, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation with the Sub-Divisional Officer, mandating possession delivery within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation; Sub-Divisional Officer ordered to deliver possession within two months.

Harilal Yadav vs State of Up and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24092 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Harilal Yadav Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aakarsh Dwivedi,Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶7

The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, with the following prayer:-

¶8

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gorakhpur (Respondent No. 2) to ensure the delivery of possession of Arazi No. 207 area 0.048 hectare in favour of petitioner in pursuance of order dated 18.04.2023 passed under Section 24 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court, 2006."

¶9

It has been submitted that application for demarcation under Section 24 of UP Revenue Code, 2006 moved on behalf of the present petitioner has been allowed, vide order dated 18.4.2023 passed by Joint Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gorakhpur. Restoration application dated 22.5.2023 filed against the order dated 18.4.2023 is rejected vide order dated 18.11.2023. As such, the order dated 18.4.2023 became final between the parties. On the representation moved by the petitioner, the Joint Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer has constituted a committee, vide order dated 4.11.2023, to demarcate the land in question, thus, in the presence of local police, stone fixing process was completed on 20.11.2013 and, in this respect, report has been submitted on 31.11.2023. However, possession could not be delivered on the spot owing to the standing crop sown by the other side, who has entered into a compromise that after harvesting the crop, he will deliver the possession to the petitioner. Since then, no fruitful steps have been taken for delivering possession in favour of the petitioner over the property in question despite the fact that stones were fixed on the four corners of the demarcated land in question. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner has moved a representation dated 21.6.2024 to District Magistrate, who has jotted on the head margin of the said application addressing Naib Tehsildar/SHO for appropriate action after due enquiry by

¶10

the joint committee of the revenue department and the police. Till date, no one has went on the spot for delivery of possession.

¶11

In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present writ petition, with a direction that the present petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order and self attested copy of the writ petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent No. 2) qua his grievance, as averred in the instant writ petition, within two weeks from today, who shall take appropriate steps for delivery of possession in pursuance of demarcation order dated 18.4.2023 and subsequent report for stone fixing dated 20.11.2023/21.11.2023 as well as direction dated 21.6.2024 issued by District Magistrate in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of the same.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation/direction, present writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 vinay

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harilal Yadav v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harilal Yadav v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratiksha Vishwakarma vs Dr Arvind Kumar Pathak, District Basic Education Officer

Girdhari vs State of Up and 2 Others

Jaipal Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) and 4 Others

Sayed Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 16 Others

Malkhan Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others