Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MURLI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Murli And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 11490 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4875 (1 March 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

According to the averments of the writ petitioners in this writ petition, certain persons tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the land of Gata No. 91, 92, 93 and 94, which had been allotted to the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioners, the allotment took place in 1976 and actual physical possession was transferred to the petitioners whose names were recorded in the Revenue records like Khasra, Khatauni and Jot Bahi.

The said encroachers filed a Writ Petition No. 10544 of 2003 without impleading the petitioners and obtained an interim order dated 6.3.2003, which was modified later on 24.11.2003 upon an application being made by the petitioners. In the modification order dated 24.11.2003, it is stated that if the petitioner, namely, Jokhu Ram son of Surya Pal was liable to be evicted under law, the interim order dated 6.3.2003 shall not come in the way of the respondents.

Subsequent to the aforesaid modification on 24.12.2003, the possession of Jokhu Ram son of Surya Pal was removed in respect of each of the aforesaid four plots nos. 91 to 94 and possession was delivered again to the petitioner. The possession memo dated 24.11.2003 has been enclosed along with the supplementary affidavit  which has been filed today.

According to the further case of the petitioners, the said persons are again threatening the petitioner because of which the petitioners want police help.

In this situation, we direct the respondent no. 2, i.e., the S.P., Mirzapur to examine the matter and to ensure that the petitioners are not deprived of their legal rights by persons who have no right to do so. The S.P. Will take such action as may be called for in the circumstances of the case.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

1.3.2006

VKS/ WP11490/06


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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