Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 10 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024WRIC/6831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged land measurement and disturbance of possession, seeking a new writ of Mandamus. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the remedy lies in filing for further interim relief in the pending Writ C No. 2690 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability; remedy lies in pending writ.

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54962-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6831 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishn Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers :-

¶8

(i) issue a writ order of direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opp. parties not to make measurement of land of Gata No 801 and 913 situate at Village Saindar Tehşil Fatehpür District Barabanki.

¶9

(ii) issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to create disturbance in peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in question in the Interest of justice.

¶10

It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent nos. 5 to 10 (the private respondents) are disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land of Gata Nos. 801 & 913, situated at Village-Saindar, Tehsil-Fatehpur, district-Barabanki. After consolidation operations started in the village, the petitioners filed Writ C No. 2690 of 2023, Jagdish Prasad And Others Vs. Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others,where this court has been pleased to grant an interim order directing the respondents to maintain status-quo with regard to the possession over the property in dispute. After such interim order dated 06-04-2023, the petitioners filed an application before the Consolidation Officer on 3006-2023, on which an endorsement has been made by the Consolidation Officer to the Assistant Consolidation Officer saying that the status-quo be maintained with respect to the property in question. However, the private respondents are

¶11

disturbing the possession of the petitioners with the help of the tehsil authorities, who started measurement of the land.

¶12

If the petitioners are claiming the benefit of the interim order granted on 06-04-2023 in Writ C No. 2690 of 2023, the appropriate course for the petitioners would to file an application for further interim relief in pending Writ C No. 2690 of 2023. Hence, this writ petition, for the relief as claimed, is not maintainable. It is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 AKS

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 10 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms.Priyanka Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Ors.

M/S Rausheena Udyog Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Shri Kamal Nath Jha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushhtahar Vibhag Lko. and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Govt. of U.P. Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Ram Daur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 10 Others

Susmita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. AND2 Others