Surat Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5562-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl. No.57)

¶4

Court No. - 21

¶5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 666 of 2025

¶6

Petitioner :- Surat Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Prakash Gupta

¶7

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Mishra for the petitioners, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶9

2. The petitioners have assailed an order dated 06.11.2024/05.12.2024 passed by respondent no.3- Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, rejecting their representation for release of abadi land of Khasra No.375 consisting area 0-12-0 Bighas, Khasra No. 389 consisting area 0.076 hectare and Khasra No. 390 consisting area 0-1580 hectare (total area 0.2340 hectare) and Khasra No. 391 consisting area 1-4-5- Bighas.

¶10

3. It seems that the petitioners preferred Writ C No. 22192 of 1992 before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in their possession over plot no. 585A. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 21.07.2010, with the following directions:

¶11

"Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chairman of the Authority who shall consider the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition and the Government order if any be exempted from Abadi land as defined under the Village Abadi Adhiniyam,1948.

¶12

Till the decision of the representation by the Chairman, the interim order granted by this Court shall continue to operate. "

¶13

4. The impugned order has been passed in pursuance of the order passed in the said writ petition.

¶14

5. The impugned order records that Khasra Nos. 101, 102, 104, 143, 144, 145, 182, 188, 189, 374, 375 and 391, were acquired and possession of the same had been

¶15

handed over to Meerut Development Authority, Meerut on different dates. Plot Nos. 389, 390 and 391M are under resumption. The order further records that at the time of acquisition there was no abadi in existence and consequently the claim for exemption cannot be allowed.

¶16

6. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Plot Nos. 389, 390 ad 391M were never acquired nor resumed nor are subject matter of any fresh acquisition proceedings and have been wrongly held to have vested in the Gaon Sabha in the impugned order. He further submits that the State Government vide a communication dated 21.01.2021 required the District Magistrate- Meerut and Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut to submit their comments and all relevant documents before it, to facilitate a decision in pursuance of the order of the High Court. However, instead of submitting the documents to the State Government, Respondent No. 3 has usurped the jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.

¶17

7. Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut is not in a position to show from the impugned order as to when Plot Nos. 389, 390 and 391M were resumed or how it is Gaon Sabha property. The impugned order in absence of such details would not be sustainable.

¶18

8. Counsel for the parties suggest that the issue as to whether the abadi land should be exempted from acquisition proceedings would fall within the domain of the State Government and therefore, the State Government may be directed to decide the entire controversy.

¶19

9. Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions made and the fact that impugned order does not reveal that Plot Number Nos. 389, 390 and 391M have been resumed and would vest in the Gaon Sabha or the State Government, we accept the prayer of the parties to refer the dispute to the State Government. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the State Government is directed to take decision on the entire controversy within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with a fresh representation.

¶20

10 . The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

11. In case the petitioners communicate the instant order to the State Government along with fresh representation within two weeks from today, the parties would maintain status quo in respect to the subject land until the representation is decided by the State Government.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Shubham Arya

¶23

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surat Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surat Singh and Another 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

Angoori Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalti Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramkrisna Gupta and 2 Others vs Executive Engineer and Project Director, National Highway Khand, Public Work Department and Another

Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashish Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Preetam Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others