Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Rajendra vs State Of U P Through Secretary & Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 February, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6062 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue, U.P. Govt. At Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6037 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since common issues are involved, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
The writ petitions have been filed essentially for a mandamus, commanding respondent no. 3 / S.D.O, Tehsil Saidpur, Ghazipur to pass orders on the abatement application filed by the petitioner.
By order dated 22.3.2011, Class-IV entry in favour of the father of the petitioner in respect of plot in dispute, was sought to be cancelled with a further direction to record the same in the name of Gaon Sabha. The petitioner filed an application dated 25.2.2015 for recall of order dated 22.3.2011.
It appears that the land in dispute was brought under consolidation with issuance of notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. C.H Act on 9.12.2016. The petitioner filed an application (Annexure-7) for abatement of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, on the premise that once an application for restoration filed by the petitioner, is allowed, parent proceedings are liable to be abated.
It is not disputed that restoration application of the petitioner is still pending adjudication. It is well settled that a restoration application does not abate with the issuance of notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of this Court in Ram Naval vs. The Board of Revenue and others, 2006(3) AWC 2868.
The writ petition as framed and filed is dismissed as misconceived.
However, respondent no.3 shall decide the restoration application of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Chandra
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rajendra vs State Of U P Through Secretary & Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 February, 2018
Judges
  • Pankaj Naqvi
Advocates
  • Vivek Singh
  • Vivek Singh