Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 975 (ALL)

Asha Devi Gupta v. State Of U. P.

2024-04-05

VIKAS BUDHWAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rashtrapati Khare, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to respondents No. 3 to 7. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he purchased bhumidhari land from one Sri Mohd Shakeel by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.8.2013 being a part of Araji No. 326 from Mohd Shakeel. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the original owner, Mohd Fazal son of Tajmahal Hussain had given power of attorney to Mohd Shakeel from wherein he has purchased the said property. Consequent to the death of Mohammad Fazal according to the writ petitioner, the power of attorney stood revoked, however, the heirs of deceased Mohammad Fazal, Mohammad Kausar became the owner of the rest of the property as well as Qaisar Fazal and Masood Fazal who were the heirs executed sale deed in favour of one Mobin Ahmad. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that other sale deeds were also executed. Further the property was also transferred in favour of third person and their names were mutated in the revenue records. 4. Occasioning said circumstances, the writ petitioner claims to have preferred a recall application/restoration application on 17.3.2021 before the Nayab Tehsildar North Sadar, Prayagraj reference whereof has been given in para 16, documents whereof has been annexed as Annexure 5 starting from page 67 onwards. 5. Prayer in the present petition is for disposal/recall of the restoration application dated 17.3.2021. 6. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the relief which is being claimed for disposal of the restoration/recall application is innocuous, thus, the second respondent be directed to decide the same if it has been filed and is pending. 7. Considering the submission of the rival parties, the writ petition stands disposed of requiring the second respondent, Nayab Tehsildar, North Sadar, Prayagraj to decide the same application dated 17.8.2021 within a period of four months after hearing the parties strictly in accordance with law if already not decided. However, the same is subject to legal impediment, if any. 8. 7. Considering the submission of the rival parties, the writ petition stands disposed of requiring the second respondent, Nayab Tehsildar, North Sadar, Prayagraj to decide the same application dated 17.8.2021 within a period of four months after hearing the parties strictly in accordance with law if already not decided. However, the same is subject to legal impediment, if any. 8. Needless to point out that this Court has no adjudicated on the merits of the matter.