Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1543 (ALL)

Chhotey Lal v. State of U. P.

2019-06-25

ANIL KUMAR, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate who has filed power on behalf of Nagar Nigam Lucknow/respondent No. 5, taken on record as well as Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Lucknow Development Authority/respondent No. 6 and perused the record. 2. As the point involved in the present writ petition is trivial in nature, so with the consent of the parties, present today, the writ petition is heard and decided at the admission stage. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case relates to plot No. 260 area 0.360 hect., 261/2 area 0.067 hect., 268 area 0.126 hect and 270 area 0.275 hect. situated at Village-Bhadeva, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Lucknow. 4. It is further submitted that on 15.1.2019, petitioner moved an application under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of the aforesaid plot before Up-Ziladhikari Sadar, Lucknow/respondent No. 3 as per rules and also deposited demarcation fee of Rs.4,000 through Treasury Challan in State Bank of India, Branch Hazratganj, Lucknow. Thereafter, the Revenue Inspector along with Lekhpal concerned visited the spot on 18.3.2019 and made measurements of the plots of the petitioner in presence of the concerned parties but did not complete the demarcation process and submitted the matter to the Up-Ziladhikari Sadar, Lucknow/respondent No. 3 to pass necessary orders. However, no steps were taken by Up-Ziladhikari Sadar, Lucknow/respondent No. 3 in spite of the best efforts and repeated requests and reminders made by the petitioner. 5. In the meantime, without any authority, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are trying to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner who is in possession on the land in question, so in view of the said factual background respondent No. 3 may be directed to pass appropriate orders in the proceeding under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before him on the basis of report submitted by Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal within a time frame as fixed by this Court and respondent No. 5/Nagar Nigam Lucknow and respondent No. 6/Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow may also be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the land in dispute. 6. 6. Sri Ratnesh Chandra learned counsel appearing on behalf of Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow/respondent No. 6, Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow/respondent No. 5 as well as learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have no objection to the above said request of the petitioner that necessary orders may be passed by Up-Ziladhikari Sadar, Lucknow/respondent No. 3 in the proceeding pending before him under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. In view of the abovesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Up-Ziladhikari Sadar, Lucknow/respondent No. 3 to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on the application moved under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of plot No. 260 area 0.360 hect., 261/2 area 0.067 hect., 268 area 0.126 hect and 270 area 0.275 hect. situated at Village-Bhadeva, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Lucknow taking into consideration the report submitted by Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal concerned, expeditiously, say, within a period of four weeks from today and if the petitioner is in possession on the land in question, the same should not be disturbed.