Back
RAN VIJAI SINGH
Phoolpati – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. And Others – Respondent
I have heard Sri Amulya Ratan Sriavastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned standing counsel and counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. Considering the nature of the order which this Court intends to pass, no notice is issued to respondent no. 4 and the writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs.
(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to restore possession of the petitioner over part of the patta land situated over Plot No. 190 area 0.03 decimal situated in Village Babhnauli, Post Office Mansa Chhapar, District Kushinagar.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to restrain the respondent no. 4 from interfering in peaceful possession of petitioner over part of the patta land in plot no. 190 area 0.03 decimal situated in village Babhnauli, Post Office Mansa Chhapar, District Kushinagar.
(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to restrain
[No cases identified as bad law. None of the entries contain keywords or phrases indicating the cases have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law (e.g., no mentions of "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," or similar negative treatments).]
d_or_cited>
[All cases are categorized here as they appear to reference or cite prior decisions without explicit treatment indicators like "followed," "distinguished," etc. This grouping reflects neutral citation patterns common in judicial opinions listing precedents.]
DHRUVA CHAND VS STATE OF U. P. - 2016 0 Supreme(All) 588: Cites "Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2013(5) ADJ 51, Phoolpati v. ... State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) ADJ 91" and notes an order passed on 8.4.2015 in a related matter ("State of U.P.and others"). No treatment keywords present; appears as straightforward referencing of prior cases in the context of a subsequent order.
SALMA KHATOON VS STATE OF U. P. - 2016 0 Supreme(All) 1676: Cites the same cases ("Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2013(5) ADJ 51, Phoolpati v. ... State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) ADJ 91") and references "State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 2004 of 2016, decided on 20.1.2016)". No treatment keywords; presented as citations in a writ decision context.
MUNNI LAL YADAV VS STATE OF U. P. - 2016 0 Supreme(All) 1490: Cites the same core cases and adds "State of U.P. and others, 2014 2 AWC 1291 (All), Paras and another v. and others". No treatment keywords; structured as a list of cited precedents.
Ram Murti Devi VS State Of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 270: Cites "Deputy Director of Consolidation and others,2013(5)ADJ51, Phoolpati Vs. State of U.P." and additional cases "State of U.P. And others, 2013(1)ADJ43, Bankey Lal and another Vs. ... State of U.P. and Others 2013 (2) ADJ 91". No treatment keywords; appears as a compilation of cited authorities.
[No cases. All entries show clear patterns of citation/referencing without ambiguity or conflicting indicators. Treatment is not explicitly stated in any, leading to the neutral categorization above rather than uncertainty.]
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
