SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(All) 2751

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ARUN TANDON AND ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
SHAFIQ AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66876 of 2013, decided on 6th December, 2013)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Shashi Nandan and Udayan Nandan for the Petitioners; C.S.C., Tarun Varma, Vrindavan Mishra and Ashwani Mishra for the Respondents.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ Petition—Manamus—Dispossess from land—High Court found that two civil suits relating to same land, is being pursuing by petitioners and earlier writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by Allahabad Development Authority—Is also pending—In view of these proceedings, High Court refused to give relief to petitioners, giving liberty to seek such further protection in Civil Suits, as may be adviced. [Para 13]

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Udayan Nandan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Tarun Verma, Advocate on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation, Shri Ashwani Mishra, Senior Advocate on behalf of the Allahabad Development Authority and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents.

2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from plot Nos. 56 to 74 and plot Nos. 59, 59-M and 78/1 situated at Tulsipur, Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabad except in accordance with law.

3. Before referring to the merits of the case, we may record that the petitioners in the present writ petition has disclosed a large number of proceedings which had taken place in respect of same plots. The proceedings so disclosed are as follows :

The Improvement Trust, Allahabad is stated to have initiated proceedings against Gulam Md. Khan, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner under Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for their eviction from the land in question. The proceedings travelled up to the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 39(z) of 1972-73. The second appeal was decided under order dated 6.7.1979. It was recorded that the original records have been destroyed because of fire in the record room of Board, directed that the case be sent to the Trial Court for retrial. It is stated that this order was subjected to challenge by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9544 of 1979 wherein the further proceedings have been stayed and the writ petition is said to be pending even today.

It is then stated that the Allahabad Development Authority started the proceedings for auction of the part of the same property in garb of the fact that the land has since been acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act and has been transferred to the Allahabad Development Authority.

4. The petitioners before this Court alongwith two other persons who claimed to be the legal heirs of Gulam Mohammad Khan filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50589 of 2002 challenging the letter of the Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority dated 23.10.2002 requiring the Tehsildar, Sadar, to expunge the name of the tenure-holder and to record the name of the Allahabad Development Authority over the land in question as well as the Advertisement published by the Allahabad Development Authority for settling the land in question by way of auction dated 27.11.2002.

5. A Division Bench of this Court, after taking note of the proceedings under Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, specifically recorded that Gulam Mohammad Khan, who was admittedly the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, prima facie the land has been acquired by the State Government and transferred in favour of the Allahabad Development Authority. The Court went on to hold that they did not find any good reason to hold that the Allahabad Development Authority has no power to settle the land by way of auction. The writ petition was dismissed with the observation that since the petitioners have already filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against dispossession, the Trial Court may examine all aspects of the matter and shall pass appropriate orders.

6. Petitioners before this Court admittedly filed Original Suit No. 827 of 2002 wherein initially a temporary injunction has been granted restraining the dispossession. On an appeal being filed by the Allahabad Development Authority, the interim injunction order was set aside and the matter was remanded for deciding afresh. After remand the injunction application has been rejected.

7. Petitioner No. 1 filed another Civil Suit No. 833 of 2002 wherein the other legal heir of Gulam Mohammad Khan i.e. petitioner’s own brother was impleaded as defendant alongwith Allahabad Development Authority. In the said suit, an inj








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top