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

2016 Supreme(All) 802

V.K.SHUKLA, MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI
INDIAN POTASH LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Shakti Swarup Nigam, Pulak Ganguly and Saurabh Kumar for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have proceeded to decide the writ petitions at the admission stage without calling for the counter-affidavit and both the writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment as the controversy involved therein is the same.

2. Indian Potash Limited (petitioner in Writ C No. 28670 of 2016) has prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159M, 641, 658M, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1M, 635/2, 635/3, 635/4 situated at Begampur and Baheri, District Muzaffarnagar and not to demolish the building and structure standing thereon.

3. Pawan Kumar and 9 others (petitioners in Writ C No. 29782 of 2016) have prayed for prayed for direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from the shops situated over Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159M, 641, 658M, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1M, 635/2, 635/3, 635/4 situated at Begampur and Baheri, District Muzaffarnagar and not to demolish the shops and




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top