Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1397 (ALL)

RAM DAYAL KANDU v. STATE OF U P

2000-11-07

D.S.SINHA, M.A.KHAN

body2000
Heard Sri S. A. Zilani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Agarwal, learned brief holder of the State of U. P. , representing the respondents No. 1, 2and 5. 2. Asserting that his house standing on an area 50 x 45 on plot No. 40 (old) and 43 (new) situate in village Bhaloni, Tehsil Barhaj, Deoria was illegally demolished by the respondents and that the respondents were threatening him to dispossess from the said land otherwise than in accordance with law, the petitioner approached this Court for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction forbidding the respondents from dispossessing him from the land in dispute otherwise than in accordance with law. 3. On 15th February, 1998, on the request of the learned Standing Counsel of the State of U. P. , the Court granted to the respondents two weeks time for filing counter-affidavit and directed the applica tion for interim relief to be considered on the next dale. 4. No counter-affidavit was filed. 5. The petition came up before the Court on 23rd February, 1998. 6. Noticing the lapse on the part of the respondents in not filing the counter-affidavit, the Court considered the ques tion of grant of interim order and passed an order directing that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. 7. After the lapse of an interminable period of more than two years the petition has come up again for admission. No counter- affidavit has been filed by the respondents till today. 8. In the absence of any counter-af fidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the assertions made in the petition arc accepted to be true. On the assertions made in the petition it is clear that the petitioner is likely to be dispossessed by the respondents from the land in dispute forcibly. 9. It cannot be gainsaid that nobody can be dispossessed from any land other wise than in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. The respondents are commanded not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute otherwise than in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .