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. Nirmala Devi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 53174 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16737 (22 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53174 of 2006

Smt. Nirmala Devi


State of U. P. and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Amarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta appearing for Gaon Sabha though it has not been impleaded as a  party in the writ petition.

Following reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner:

i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.8.2006 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Annexure No. ''10' to the writ petition);

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate challenged therein.

iii) Issue any order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

The petitioner has already filed a revision against the order dated 7.8.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which is pending before respondent no. 2. Since the petitioner has availed statutory alternative remedy, the prayer no. (i) for quashing the order dated 7.8.2006 cannot be allowed. In so far as prayer no. (ii) is concerned, the revision is pending before respondent no. 2 wherein validity and legality of the order dated 7.8.2006 as well as maintainability of the revision, which has been challenged, shall be considered and there is absolute no reason to direct the maintainability of the said order to be decided as preliminary issue and as such relief no. (ii) can also not be granted.

Since two main reliefs prayed for in the writ petition cannot be allowed, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

However, considering the facts and circumstances, a direction is issued to respondent no. 2, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner along with revision within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him in accordance with law.

Till the disposal of stay application, as directed aforesaid, the parties to the writ petition shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the land in dispute as it exists today.

Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands dismissed.



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.