Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LAL CHANDRA versus SMT. LAXMI DEVI AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lal Chandra v. Smt. Laxmi Devi And Others - WRIT - A No. 14101 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5542 (8 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

Court No.4

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14101 of 2006

Lal Chandra

Versus

Smt. Laxmi Devi and others

_____

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

The petitioner, who alleges to be purchaser of the accommodation in dispute, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

(i)issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.53 of 2005 pending before Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate Vith Kanpur Nagar, under Section 18 (3) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 Smt. Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Lal Chand and others.

(ii)Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

(iii)Award the cost of the petition.

Before this writ petition the matter has already been before this Court when this Court has decided the earlier Writ Petition No.7008 of 1984 whereby this Court by its judgment dated 23rd May 2003 allowed the writ petition filed by predecessor in interest of respondents 1 to 4 and directed that the matter is being remanded back to the court below for fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The orders dated 18th June 1983 and 15th February 1984 were quashed by this Court.

Now it is stated at the Bar that nothing further has been done. The petitioner alleges that he is not in possession of the accommodation in question. Therefore his position as such will be affected in case the application now filed by the respondents purported to be an application under Section 18 (3) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is allowed.

Be it as it may be without entering into the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner since the matter is very old it is open to the petitioner to move an application with the prayer as is the prayer in the present writ petition before the authority concerned. I my opinion this Court need not interfere at this stage in the controversy. There is yet another reason since the matter has gone back pursuant to the judgment dated 23rd May 2003 by this Court, the grievance, if any, by the petitioner can very well be raised before the authority to whom the matter is remanded. As and when any grievance is made before the authority to whom the matter is remanded it is expected that the authority shall deal with the grievance made by the petitioner in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt: 8.3.2006.

mhu.


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.