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


Nirmal Chand Nishad v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 16851 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 16312 (4 October 2007)

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).


Court No. 10

Civil Misc. WP No. 16851 of 2006

Nirmal Chand Nishad ... Petitioner


State of UP and others ... Respondents

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J

Hon'ble VK Verma, J

1. The District Magistrate, Fatehpur advertised on 28.2.2003 for granting auction lease for Tehsil Khaga. This advertisement was block-wise as well as Tehsil-wise. Amongst other blocks, Sangolipur Garha is one of the block. The petitioner gave his bid of Rs.6,55,000/- for this block and his bid was highest. One Sri Chandra Mohan Shukla had given bid for entire Tehsil Khaga and his bid was highest for this Tehsil. All these bids were sent to the State Government for approval. The State Government by his order dated 28.3.2003 approved the bid for entire Tehsil and as such auction lease was given to Sri Chandra Mohan Shukla. The petitioner filed writ petition no. 22027 of 2003 before this court for a direction that out of Tehsil bid lease of block Sangolipur Garha should be given to him. This writ petition was decided on 21.5.2003 with a direction that the petitioner may file representation before the District Magistrate and his representation may be decided with a reasoned order after giving opportunity to the necessary parties.

2. The District Magistrate, Fatehpur asked for guidance of the State Government and the State Government by its order dated 4.11.2003 ordered that block Sangolipur Garha be excluded from the auction lease given to Sri Chandra Mohan Shukla. Thereafter, Sri Chandra Mohan Shukla filed writ petition no. 5759 of 2003 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and obtained interim order. Thereafter an order was passed by the State Government on 21.11.2003 excluding Sangolipur Garha from the Tehsil bid. Sri Chandra Mohan Shukla filed another writ petition no. 5873 of 2003 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and obtained interim order. Both these two writ petitions have been dismissed on 5.1.2006 as having become infructuous. The District Magistrate thereafter had issued notice on 28.2.2006 inviting application for grant of lease in district Fatehpur including the block Sangolipur Garha. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondents.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had deposited Rs.3,27,500/- on 7.3.2003 on his bid being highest and the State Government also passed orders on 4.11.2003 and 21.11.2003 but the lease could not be given to him due to interim orders passed in WP No. 5759 of 2003 and 5873 of 2003. And as these two writ petitions have been dismissed as infructuous, either the lease may be granted to him or the money (including one spent for stamp) be returned to him with interest. He further states in case the government requires additional money for lease being granted to him, then the petitioner is ready to deposit the same.

5. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner may file a representation before respondent no. 2. In case the representation is filed, it may be decided by respondent no.2 by a speaking order, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file a certified copy of this order; other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with his representation. Respondent no.2 after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided the lease in respect to block Sangolipur Garha in pursuance of the notice dated 28.2.2006 shall not be finalised.

6. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.

Date: 4.10.2007



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.