Allahabad High Court
Munshi Lal And 21 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 July, 2021
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8755 of 2021
Petitioner :- Munshi Lal And 21 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay,Ashish Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioners, who is available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 4 is also available.
Petitioners have filed present writ petition for a direction to respondent-3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Mainpuri to decide Case No.22/2001 (State Vs. Mushi Lal and others) filed under Section 33/39 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act within a time bound period.
Record shows that dispute relates to survey plot no.267, area 4.144 hectares situated in Village- Mauja Araji Line, Shahri, Tehsil Sadar, District Mainpuri.
Proceedings under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 was initiated against petitioners which came to be decided against petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by prescribed authority petitioners filed an appeal which came to be allowed vide order 02.02.1995. Subsequently, Nagar Palika filed a review petition bearing Misc. Case No.09 of 1995 seeking review of judgment and order dated 02.02.1995 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Mainpuri, which also came to be dismissed.
Subsequently, it appears that State of U.P. initiated proceedings under Sections 33 and 39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act with regard to land in dispute in the year 2001.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that inspite of the fact that a period of 19 years has rolled by above-noted proceedings have yet not been decided. He therefore submits that failure to decide above-noted case even after expiry of 19 years cannot be justified in any manner. It is thus urged that interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Mainpuri to decide above-noted case.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the facts as noted-above as well as submissions urged by learned counsel for petitioners.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Mainpuri to decide Case No.22/2001 (State Vs. Mushi Lal and others) filed under Section 33/39 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and within a reasonable period.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent-3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Mainpuri to decide Case No.22/2001 (State Vs. Mushi Lal and others) under Section 33/39 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified/computer generated copy of this order which shall be filed before him by petitioners by means of a notary affidavit.
Order Date :- 2.7.2021
Saif
