Bal Kishan vs Jhansi Development Authority ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 5360 ALL

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 5360 ALL
Judgement Date : 28 August, 2014

Allahabad High Court

Bal Kishan vs Jhansi Development Authority ... on 28 August, 2014

Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45074 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Bal Kishan
 
Respondent :- Jhansi Development Authority Thru' Secy. & 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is contending that only 3 decimals of land were taken in possession out of a total area 20 decimals of plot No. 1064.

The contention, therefore, is that the petitioner is entitled to seek protection of the area over which the temple exists on the said land to the extent it is constructed over plot no. 1064.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has not filed the current Khatauni in relation to plot which he claims is still in his possession. The Khatauni which has been filed is in the name of his father that too even of 1375 F. The current Khatauni being not available, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner still continues to be the owner of holding or not.

Even if there is temple as alleged in existence, it appears that the name of State of UP has been entered in the Khatauni 1417 to 1422 F, which indicates that an area of 0.0120 Hect. This clearly matches that with the land which has been acquired subsequently. The petitioner does not have any individual right now to claim such a relief on the ground that the land is in the possession of the temple.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, if the deity exists and there is a temple then the proper person on behalf of the deity can file a suit for injunction as permissible under law. So far as the acquisition is concerned, the same appears to be complete. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner more so with the acquisition appears to be of the year 1985.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of any other aggrieved person.

Order Date :- 28.8.2014

SKS