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


Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 30181 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16405 (19 September 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).


Court No. 29

1. WP No. 13663 of 2006

   Smt. Krishan Knti Shukla vs. State of UP and others

2.  WP No. 30181 of 2006

    Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. State of UP and others

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J

1. The property of Smt. Shakuntla Devi (Debtor) was auctioned on 30th April 2005. In this auction Smt. Krishan Kanti Shukla  is the auction purchaser and she deposited 1/4th of the amount on the same date and thereafter remaining amount was deposited on 30th May 2005. The auction sale was also confirmed on 24th September 2005 and the sale certificate was also issued on 1.10.2005. Thereafter when the possession of the property was not being given to the auction purchaser, she filed WP 13663 of 2006 in which an interim order was passed on 7.3.2006 to handover the possession to the auction purchaser or to show cause. In the meantime the debtor filed an application before the Commissioner for setting aside the auction sale. This application was dismissed on 23rd February 2006. The debtor filed a revision in which an interim order was obtained on 1.5.2006. After the interim order of this Court dated 7.3.2006, some portion of the house was sealed by the respondents. Hence the debtor filed WP 30181 of 2006.

2. We have heard Sri VK Srivastava, counsel for the debtor and Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, counsel for the auction purchaser and the Standing counsel for the state officials.

3. It is not disputed that the debtor has filed revision no. 366/Sale of 2005-06 which is pending before the Board of Revenue. In view of it, the writ petitions are not maintainable and are dismissed. The parties may appear before the Board of Revenue on 30th October 2006. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue may decide the revision itself at an early date. The parties shall maintain status quo on the spot till any other order is passed by the Board of Revenue.  With these observations both the writ petitions are dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of  WP 30181 of 2006.

Date: 19.9.2006



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.