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


Leelawati Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 75024 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7243 (9 December 2005)


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 1

Writ Petition No. 75024 of 2005

Leelawati Devi Vs. State of UP


Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav,J.

1.We have heard counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel and Sri SPK Tripathi counsel for the respondents.

2.The writ petition is similar to bunch of writ petitions. The leading writ petition in the said bunch is Writ Petition no. 10841 of 2005, which was decided on 6.6.2005. The operative portion contained in paras 34 and 35 of the judgement in that writ petition is as follows:

' Before parting with the case, we would like to mention that a couple of writ  petitions had been filed earlier challenging the same acquisition proceedings but the challenge to the notification was abandoned and the prayer was modified requesting for a direction to the State Government to consider exempting the land of the petitioners in those writ petitions by exercising powers under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners therein had brought on record that either their buildings were situate thereon or the land itself was required for a public purpose as contemplated under the master plan itself. It was also brought on record that the matter was engaging the attention of the State Government and, as such, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash and another, reported in (1998) 6 SCC,1, and in the case of Ved Prakash and another reported in (2003) 9 SCC 542, the case of the petitioner therein could be considered for exempting the same from acquisition. We had issued such a direction in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24279 of 2005, Atul Chopra and another Vs. State of UP and others. In case any of the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are able to establish any such similar claim as in the decision referred to here-in above, it shall be open to them to approach the State Government for redress al of their grievances in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to cost.'

3. In view of the decision in the W.P. No. 10841 of 2005, this writ petition is also dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

Dated. 9.12.2005



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.