Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1979 (ALL)

Gopal Narayan Chaudhary v. State of U. P.

2015-07-20

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his father was Zamindar of Plot No. 667 (Old No. 570) having area 12 acre 83 decimal situated in Nautanwa, Maharajganj. In the khasara and khatauni, the plot no. 667 is shown as abadi. The father of the petitioner constructed his own building and handed over to private respondent no. 5 for running Madarsa without any rent. After the death of his father in 1991, the madarsa was running peacefully. All of sudden the petitioner found that to get permanent recognition for Madarsa the respondent no. 5 in order to show the building of his own over the said land started removing the teen shade over the aforesaid plot, then the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 306 of 2014 on 22.9.2014 for mandatory injunction, in which the private respondent no. 5 has filed his written statement on 6.4.2015. In pursuance to the directions of the respondent no. 1, the District Magistrate directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nautanawa, Maharajganj to verify the documents relating to rights of the respondent no. 5 over the property in dispute for the purpose of grant of recognition. 3. The submission is that from a newspaper report dated 20.5.2015 the petitioner came to know that the proposal for grant of recognition to the private respondent no. 5-Madarsa is under consideration before the State Government. The petitioner thereafter submitted his objection before the various authorities raising his grievance that the property over which the Madarsa is running is the property of the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent no. 5 cannot be granted grant-in-aid treating the property of his own. The grievance is that till date no action has been taken and in case grant-in-aid is given to the respondent no. 5-Madarsa treating the property of its own, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that at the first instance the grievance of the petitioner can be considered by the respondent no. 3 regarding factual position in this regard and will submit his report before the respondent no. 1 for consideration before any grant-in-aid is provided to the Madarsa, which is being run by the respondent no. 5. 5. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that at the first instance the grievance of the petitioner can be considered by the respondent no. 3 regarding factual position in this regard and will submit his report before the respondent no. 1 for consideration before any grant-in-aid is provided to the Madarsa, which is being run by the respondent no. 5. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, it is provided that the petitioner may file a fresh representation as well as upto date status of the civil proceedings along with certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 shall consider and decide the same, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of such representation in consultation with any other authority, if so required by him and forward his report before the respondent no. 1 within another 15 days for consideration. 6. With the aforesaid observations/direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.