Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 570 (ALL)

ROOKANA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-17

SATYA NARAIN AGNIHOTRI, SHABIHUL HASNAIN

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—List has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel. 3. Since the matter relates to the year 2009, we feel that we should go through the contents of the petition. On examination, it is found that it is an urban ceiling matter and similar matters have been disposed of by this Court. Accordingly, we proceed to decide this matter. 4. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.6.2008 as well as order dated 22.3.1999 and for a direction to the opposite parties not to make the entry in the revenue records in pursuance of the impugned order dated 12.6.2008 by expunging his name and not to interfere in peaceful possession of petitioner’s land in question. 5. An interim order was granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner on 28.5.2009. For convenience, the interim order dated 28.5.2009 passed by this Court in this petition is quoted below : “In compliance of the order passed by this Court Sri Mahendra Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Lucknow is present in person. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file counter-affidavit. List this petition in the month of July, 2009. Till further orders of this Court, the opposite parties shall not interfere in the possession of the petitioner or Khasra Nos. 909-S, 738-M, 739/1-M, 785, 993/1-M and 994/1-M situated in Village Kannaosi, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow. On the next date, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Lucknow, need not appear in person again unless called for.” 6. Short counter-affidavit has been filed but the State has failed to prove that the possession has been taken over by the State. 7. In view of numerous pronouncements of this Court and the law of land existing today, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 29.5.2009 and if the possession of land of the petitioner has not been taken from the petitioner, the same shall not be taken from the petitioner in future and if the possession has been taken, the same shall be restored to the petitioner immediately and revenue record may be corrected accordingly.