Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sunil Kumar & Another v. Collector/D.M., Mirzapur & Others - WRIT - C No. 19682 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 2291 (30 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to grant fresh Patta of the land mentioned in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. Further prayer is for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners and the name of the petitioners be mutated . It has been stated by the petitioners that by a proper resolution by the Land Management Committee the said Pattas were allotted in favour of the petitioners being plot No.1061 -M measuring Bighas 1-8-0 in favour of the petitioners no.1, plot no. 769 area 7 Biswas, plot no.285/3 area Bighas 2-5-0 and plot no.9/13 area 2 Bighas total comes to 7 Bighas. Petitioner no.2 has also been allotted plot on 6.6.1989 and the petitioner was given possession of the said plot. The petitioners submit that they made an application before the concerned authority to mutate the name on the aforesaid plots. But the respondents have not paid any heed. Subsequently, the petitioners and other similarly situated persons made an application before respondent no.2 with a prayer that the names of the petitoners be recorded in the revenue record. Respondent no.2 has directed the respondent no.3 to mutate the name of the petitioner on the basis of the Patta granted in their favour. But inspite of the aforesaid facts, no action has been taken by respondent no.5. Then the petitioners moved an application before the Commissioner with respect to the mutation of their names in the revenue record. On 2.11.1998 the Joint Commissioner has directed respondent no.3 to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue record on the basis on  the Patta  allotted in their favour. A further direction was also made that the respondent no.5 will not initiate any action for allotting the said land in favour of other persons. The petitioners submit that inspite of the aforesaid order passed by the authorities no action has been taken by respondent no.5 and the respondents no.3 and 5 are intending to execute afresh Patta of the same land in favour of other persons. Then the petitioners moved again an application before the Commissioner and respondent no.2. Respondent no.3 was directed to make an inquiry and not to allot the said land in favour of any person. The order-dated 18.12.1998 passed by respondent no.2 has been annexed as Anenxure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioners submit that inspite of the aforesaid directions issued by the respondents, no action has been taken. The petitioners have approached this Court.

While entertaining the writ petition this Court vide its order dated 13.5.1999 was pleased to grant time to the Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit and in the mean time it was observed that if the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land, their possession shall not be disturbed.

Inspite of the time granted by this Court no counter affidavit has been filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel and have perused the record. Admittedly no order of cancellation of the Patta, which was allotted in favour of the petitioners, has been passed or annexed with the writ petition. The Competent Authority has passed an order directing the authority to pass the appropriate order on the application filed on behalf of the petitioners. From the record it is clear that inspite of the directions issued by respondent no.2 who is admittedly a higher authority, the lower authority has not initiated any action. From the order dated 18.12.90 which has been filed by the petitioners as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, it clearly appears that the authority has directed that an inquiry be made and the names of the petitioners be incorporated and no further allotment of Patta be made. But the order of the Commissioner has not been complied with and no orders have been passed.

In view of the aforesaid facts the wit petition is being disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 to consider the claim of the petitioners and respondent no.3 will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law taking into consideration the order passed by the Commissioner on 18.12.1998. The aforesaid exercise shall be done by respondent no.3 preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. It is also made clear that if the petitioners are in possession and the allotment of Patta which was in favour of the petitioners has not already been cancelled, till the decision into the matter relating to the petitioners, they will not be ejected from the land in dispute.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.



W.P.19682 of 1999


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.