Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15249 of 2021 Petitioner :- Munna Sahni Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
Pursuant to the order dated 14.7.2021 learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of the instruction dated 15.8.2021. Learned Standing Counsel has directed to upload the instruction that are kept on record.
Present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner and grant the proposed lease in his favour.
According to the instruction the petitioner was not resident of village and therefore, he was declared ineligible for grant of patta. This decision was taken on 10.4.2021. The petitioner has approached this Court in June, 2021. Alongwith instruction a copy of the affidavit given by the petitioner on 14.8.2021 that he was declared ineligible for not being resident of village and he was made aware of this fact has also been annexed. It is further stated that he never received any order for deposit of amount of lease rent and it is stated in the affidavit that one Paras Nishad, Adhyaksh, Machhua Samuday mislead him to deposit the amount and it is further stated that now he will withdraw present petition on the next date. Original affidavit has also been produced by the learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is now claiming that the affidavit was taken in pressure, however, there is no dispute that he has given the affidavit.
All such factual dispute cannot be considered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the opinion of this Court it would not be appropriate to consider all such fact findings whether the affidavit was filed under pressure or not. Moreover, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not resident of village, therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain present petition.
However, since the petitioner is claiming that he may be covered under Rule 57 (5) (c) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2016, therefore, he shall be permitted to take participation in the fresh auction proceedings that may be carried on. In case, any such auction proceeding is initiated, the authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner also strictly in accordance with law.
The authorities are directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner within one week from today from the date of production of a self verified copy of this order, which may be verified from the official website of this Court.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Lalit Shukla
Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Kumar Birla Date: 2021.08.19 16:09:12 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad