Hemendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 6250 ALL

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 6250 ALL
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2011

Allahabad High Court

Hemendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 30 November, 2011

Bench: Pankaj Mithal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 68360 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Hemendra Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Satya Prakash Pandey,Ved Prakash Pandey
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Petitioner has made the following prayers in the writ petition:-

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to decide the matter as soon as possible within the period of two months.

(ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice or else the petitioner has suffer irreparably.

(iii) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

The relief claimed as above is vague and it is not clear as to which case the petitioner wants to be decided within a period of two months.

In paragraph 3 of the writ petition petitioner has said that the brother of the petitioner has made an application before the Consolidation Officer, Mathura on 24.7.07 praying that the valuation of Gata No.443 is same and different valuation is illegal because owner of Gata No.443 is co-sharer.

In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it has been stated that the brother of the petitioner Bhagwat Swarup Sharma has made objections in Case Crime No.1329 of 2011, Smt. Meena Devi Vs. Bheek Chandra Pachauri pending under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 has made objections on 26.6.2011.

The averments of the above paragraph are not only unclear but totally confusing.

In view of aforesaid as it is not clear as to which of the case the petitioner wants to get decided expeditiously he is not entitle to any relief.

Petition has been filed in a most casual and cavalier manner without any sense of responsibility.

Petition is totally vague and misconceived. It is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 30.11.2011

piyush