Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2942 (ALL)

Hifzur Rahman v. State of U. P.

2014-09-22

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. The subject matter of the present proceedings is a land bearing Gata Nos. 601 and 692 situated at Village-Belhari, Pargana-Rudauli, Tehsil Ram Sanehi Ghat, District-Barabanki. According to the petitioner, new Gata No. 601 corresponds to old Gata Nos. 350, 351, 352 and 353 whereas new Gata No. 692 corresponds to old Gata No. 404. The case of the petitioner is that his father had instituted a suit for an injunction before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barabanki in 1986 (Suit No.126 of 1986). In that suit, it has been stated that on 28 March 1998, a compromise was filed by the first defendant and the plaintiffs and the suit was disposed of in terms thereof on 28 March 1998. Despite this, it has been contended that the District Magistrate, upon being moved with a representation by the private respondents, respondents 6 to 14, issued a direction on the same day to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for stopping the illegal construction. This according to the petitioner, would amount to an order directly in conflict with the decree of the Civil Court. 2. At this stage, it would, in our view, be appropriate to direct the District Magistrate, the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner having due regard to the decree of compromise on which the petitioner places reliance. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of the decree and whether the decree is in respect of the same land which forms the subject matter of the dispute in the present case are evidently factual matters. We clarify that we have made a reference to the case of the petitioner but since we have left it open to the District Magistrate to conduct a proper verification, we have not entered any finding of fact on the merits of the statements made on behalf of the petitioner. We, accordingly, permit the petitioner to move the District Magistrate afresh who may, after due verification and after hearing of the affected parties, consider what directions would be required in the interest of justice and in accordance with law. In the event, the District Magistrate is moved by the petitioner, he may take an appropriate decision thereon within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 3. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. In the event, the District Magistrate is moved by the petitioner, he may take an appropriate decision thereon within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 3. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.