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


Vishnu Dutta v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 62236 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19334 (15 November 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.10

             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62236 of 2006                        

Vishnu Dutta  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .. . . . ...  . .  .  . .Petitioner.


State of U.P. and others . .  . . . . .  . . . .  . . .  . .  . . . .  .   Respondents.


Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitions, learned  Standing Counsel representing respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Anurag Khann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the land sought to be acquired under the notifications dated 13.9.2006 and 29.10.2006 (Annexures- 1 and 2 to the writ petition ) is abadi and that the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss if the land in question is acquired. There is no challenge to the basic authority/jurisdiction to acquire the land under Land Acquisition Act.

In view of the matter, we direct the petitioner to file  representation for seeking exemption and to raise his grievance before the State Government as contemplated u/s 48 of the Act for withdrawing the notifications with respect to the land belonging to the petitioner (subject  matter of the writ petition ) along with certified copy of this order as well as complete copy of  the writ petition with all annexures before the concerned  authority within three weeks from today and on such representation being filed, as stipulated above, the competent authority shall decide the same within eight weeks of the receipt of the representation as contemplated  above, by passing a reasoned order exercising its unfettered discretion on the basis of record before him in accordance with relevant Rules, Government Orders, Scheme/Policy after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned without being influenced by any of the observations in this judgment. It is  further directed that till decision of the representation the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner nor demolish the structure belonging to the petitioner. It is made clear that in  case the petitioners fails to file  the representation, this interim order shall stand automatically vacated.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Dated: 15.11.2006



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.