Nand Prasad and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47260

Court No. - 34

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29541 of 2024

Petitioner :- Nand Prasad And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B.Pal,Umesh Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in the Court today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri R.B. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Shashikant Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha-respondent no.4.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the concerned respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question i.e. arazi no.101 area 0.186 hectare situated at Village- Kamdhenwa, Tappa- Patna, ParganaSahajahapur, Tehsil & District Deoria.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the suit along with stay application dated 25.07.2024 (nand Prasad and others versus Ramadhar and others) under the provisions of 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, pending before him within stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶11

(iii) ..............................

¶12

(iv) .............................."

¶13

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste and are in possession of the land in question since long time. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioners that the land in question having Arazi No.101 area 0.186 hectare situated at Village Kamdhenwa, TappaPatna, Paragana- Sahajahapur, Tehsil & District- Deoria,, had always been in

¶14

possession of his ancestors even before the abolition of Zamindari in the State.

¶15

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent nos.5 and 6 are claiming that some part of Arazi No.101 was allotted to them as agricultural lease on 23.07.2004, however, it is submitted that no possession has ever been taken by them till date. He further contends that the alleged allotment made by the respondent authorities to the respondent nos.5 & 6 is in contravention of the provisions of Section 195 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 because the land in question was not vacant at the time of alleged allotment. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after coming to know about the alleged allotment, they approached the Court of learned District Magistrate, District- Deoria (respondent no.2) by filing a case under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and the said case is still pending for adjudication.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has made an statement that 25.04.2025 is already fixed in the aforesaid case. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioners that they have serious apprehension of dispossession from the land in question under the garb of the aforesaid alleged allotment and as such they have moved an application for interim protection along with the said application under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, before the learned Collector, District- Deoria (respondent no.2).

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the present writ petition on the ground that since the petitioner has already availed statutory remedy before the respondent no.2, as such the instant writ petition is not entertainable.

¶18

Confronted with the aforesaid objection as raised by the learned Standing Counsel, Sri Pal appearing on behalf of the petitioner confined his relief only to the extent of prayer no. ii) as made in the writ petition and pressed for a direction to be issued to the respondent no.2 to expeditiously conclude the pending proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (Nand Prasad and others

¶19

versus Ramadhar and others).

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, DistrictDeoria (respondent no.2) to conclude the pending proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (Nand Prasad and others versus Ramadhar and others) pending before it, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.

¶21

It is provided that the application for interim relief filed by the petitioners along with the aforesaid application filed under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, shall be considered by the respondent no.2, if possible on the next date fixed i.e. 25.04.2025 otherwise within the shortest possible time, and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, on its merit.

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as pleaded before this Court, it is provided that status-quo as exists today in respect of the possession of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the above mentioned application for interim relief pending before the respondent no.2 in the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, whichever is earlier.

¶23

It is made clear that the respondent no.2 while considering the application for interim relief shall not be influenced in any manner by the interim protection granted herein by this Court and shall pass orders on the same, in accordance with law on its own merit.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Abhishek Gupta

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nand Prasad and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Prasad and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Syed Mohd. Qadar Ali vs Anju Verma Singh

Smt. Basanti Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotey Lal Kushwaha and 29 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy , Social Welfare Deptt, Lucknow and Another

Ram Pratap Yadav vs M/S Omaxe Ltd. Cyber Tower Second Floor, Lucknow

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Private Limited Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Private Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Its Authorized Signatory