Dismissed

Ashish Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Dist. Lko and 11 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024WRIC/6789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of ceiling application and patta grant on his land. Court found adequate remedy exists under Section 11(2) and dismissed writ allowing alternative legal route.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to withdraw writ and file application under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960 within two weeks to claim ownership.

Ashish Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Dist… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54842

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6789 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ashish Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Dist. Lko And 11 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shresth Agarwal,Ram Khelawan Singh,Salma Bano Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shresth Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶8

The grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 27(4) of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to Ceiling Act, 1960) and granting the patta to six persons on the land which has allegedly been declared to be surplus with regard to Gata No. 1034/1-12-0, 1035/2-9-0, 1036/2-15-0, 1039/2-7-0, 1040/5-11-0 and 1051/2-1-19.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner has asserted in the present writ petition that in fact the petitioner is the owner of the said land but due to certain reasons his name was not entered into the revenue records and consequently the proceedings were initiated under the Imposition of Land Holdings Act and petitioner as never served a notice.

¶10

In sums and substance, the petitioner is asserting his ownership of the land which has been declared to be surplus by the prescribed authority under Section 11 of the Ceiling Act, 1960.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that in case the petitioner seeks to assert his ownership over the said land which has been declared to be surplus, he has an efficacious remedy by moving an appropriate application under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960. He further submits that the prescribed authority can pass appropriate orders and also examine the evidence adduced by the petitioner in support of his submission asserting ownership of the disputed land.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel and at this stage submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition and file appropriate application before the prescribed authority under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960 and in case such an application is moved within next two weeks, the prescribed authority shall proceed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶14

The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the objections in support of his case before the prescribed authority which shall be duly considered by the said authority and in case the petitioner is successful before the prescribed authority or before the appellate authority, it shall be open for him to assail the impugned order before appropriate forum.

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 9.8.2024

¶17

Ravi/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashish Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Dist. Lko and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Dist. Lko and 11 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

Anil Kumar @ Anil Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education,Lko. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Vijay Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Renu Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Education Deptt. and Others

Ashish Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Dist. Lko and 11 Others

Rj College of Pharmacy Tadawa Khanpur Ghazipur Thru. Its Manager Poonam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education,Lko. and 3 Others