Disposed

Jitendra Verma and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024WRIC/9052/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court accepted the petition challenging a revenue proceeding decided ex parte. The court issued notice to private respondents, fixed dates for affidavits, and granted an interim injunction maintaining status quo in the disputed property.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to private respondents; interim injunction maintained status quo preventing alienation of the disputed property.

Jitendra Verma and Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9052 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Jitendra Verma And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Vashu Deo Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.4. Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the privaterespondents No.5 to 9 on caveat.

¶6

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that at the behest of the private-respondents the proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2008 were initiated. The said proceedings came to be decided against the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners and as such being aggrieved two revisions came to be filed. One by Shri Yogesh Kumar and others and the second revision was filed by Smt. Gomti Devi.

¶7

The contention is that Smt. Gomti Devi had purchased the property in question from Shri Yogesh Kumar.

¶8

During pendency of the two revisions, Smt. Gomti Devi had expired so also Smt. Brijbala Devi and Shri Radha Raman, who were parties in the revision filed by Smt. Gomti Devi.

¶9

The application to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased was also pending, however, without disposing of the application for substitution, the revision came to be decided exparte against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners had moved an application for recall which has also been rejected and being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶10

The matter requires consideration.

¶11

Let notice be issued to the private-respondents No.10 to 19 returnable at an early date.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners shall take steps within a

¶13

week from today.

¶14

Since, the private-respondents No.5 to 9 are already represented on caveat, hence, no fresh notice is required.

¶15

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks. The petitioners shall have ten days thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

List this matter again on 09.12.2024.

¶17

As an interim protection, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status quo that is to say that no third party rights will be created nor any alienation will take place in respect of the property in dispute.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Rakesh/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Verma and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Verma and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and 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

Zahir Ahmad Vs IV Th Additional District Judge Faizabad

A K Multimedia Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Akram Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner, State Good and Service Tax, Lko. and 2 Others

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shahjad @ Haudi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Usha Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Mohd. Kaif Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.