Dismissed¶21

Jitendar and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.) – WRIT

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2025WRIC/29912/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT-C 29912 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, Prakash Padia J., dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh petition; locus standi / maintainability preliminary objection left undecided; U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 Section 27(4); Commissioner Vindhyachal Division order dated 18.07.2025; petitioners' application of 28.11.2024 before respondent no.2; return of certified copy of impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh petition; office directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to petitioners' counsel after retaining a photocopy on record. ¶21

Jitendar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 29912 of 2025

Jitendar And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sanjay Kumar Dubey .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mayank Singh, Pradeep Singh

¶8

Court No. - 33

¶9

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, leanred counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing for the State-respondents no.1 to 3, Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ankur Azad, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

¶11

The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Vindhyachal, under Section 27 (4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

¶12

Preliminary objection has been raised by Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior counsel that the present petition is not maintainable on behalf of the petitioners', since they have no locus to challenge the aforesaid order.

¶13

It is further argued that the land in question was never allotted in favour of the petitioners, hence the proceedings were initiated against the several persons including the respondent no.5.

¶14

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were moved an application before the respondent no.2 on 28.11.2024, hence they have full right to challenge the order passed by respondent no.2. It is further argued that their objection has not been at all taken into consideration.

¶15

In response to the same, it is argued by learned Senior counsel that the aforesaid objection was not raised by the petitioners', at the time of

¶16

WRIC No. 29912 of 2025

¶17

¶18

proceeding, which is clear from the objection/application, itself.

¶19

At this point of time, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.

¶20

The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by counsel for the respondents.

¶21

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶22

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioners after retaining the photocopy of the same on record.

¶23

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶24

September 8, 2025 S.K.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendar and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendar and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases