Satiram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024WRIC/9669/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of revenue orders cancelling land patta. Court stayed operation of impugned orders pending filing of counter affidavit, noting disputed possession details.

What did the court decide?

Limited time granted for counter affidavit; operation of the impugned reformal and revisional orders stayed till the next date of listing.

Satiram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75534

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9669 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Satiram And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chand Rathour Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 11.07.2024 passed under Section 210 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 2006) and the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 passed under Section 128 of the Code, 2006.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by order dated 22.07.2017, the land has been allotted to the petitioners by the Assistant Collector, Hardoi in pursuance of the resolution dated 27.12.2016 passed by the Land Management Committee of Gram Sabha Bhithadan, Pargana Gopamau, Tehsil Sadar, District Hardoi.

¶8

It is further submitted that in place of giving possession of the land allotted in favour of the petitioners, a case was filed under Section 128 of the Code, 2006 on behalf of the State for cancellation of patta. In pursuance thereof, the Collector had directed for enquiry in the matter and a report dated 13.09.2018 has been submitted on 28.09.2018 by the Revenue Inspector stating therein that the land which has been allotted in favour of the petitioners, houses are already constructed on the said vacant land belonging to the Gram Sabha.

¶9

It is further submitted that neither the name of the persons have been disclosed nor any details have been given in the report.

¶10

It is further submitted that the land is still vacant and there is no construction and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the photograph enclosed along with the writ petition.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel and the counsel for the Gram Sabha are unable to dispute that after the resolution passed by the Land Management Committee, the vacant usar/banjar land belonging to the Gram Sabha has been allotted by the Competent Authority and also unable to dispute the fact that in the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, in pursuance thereof, the impugned orders have been passed, no name of any person has been

¶12

mentioned whose houses are said to be constructed and are also unable to dispute the fact that who has better right the allottee or the encroacher, who has constructed the house on the land belonging to the Gram Sabha.

¶13

Learned Standing counsel and counsel for the Gram Sabha pray for and are granted three weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

¶14

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a further period of two weeks.

¶15

List this case immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned revisional order dated 11.07.2024 passed under Section 210 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006 and the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 passed under Section 128 of the Code, 2006 shall remain stayed.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 Nitesh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satiram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satiram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Saroj Yadav Vs Ashish Kumar Yadav

Bajrang Pipe Stores, Thru. Proprietor Sri Hem Chandra Jaiswal Vs Ish Narayan and 4 Others

Fareha Nuzhat and Anr. Vs Tariq Maqsood Farooqui

Shreya Arora @ Shreya Ahuja Vs Sonu Arora

Radhey Mohan Singh Vs Commissioner Workmen Compensation Labour Lko and Ors.

Devendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. through Prin.Secy. Revenue and Ors.