Ishtiaq Hussain And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 21206 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159040-DB
 
Court No. - 40
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19553 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Ishtiaq Hussain And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bakhteyar Yusuf
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.M.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking following principal reliefs.

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in any manner in the rights of the petitioners including their peaceful possession over the land in dispute situated over Arazi No. 334 area 417 square meter, Arazi No. 337 area 290 square meter and Arazi No. 338 area 310 square meter in all 1017 square meter situated in village Phaphamau, tehsil Soraon, district Prayagraj having regard to the order passed by the competent authority declared as surplus under the Act 1976.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to treat the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners by the Predecessor in the interest of the land in question as void in the eyes of law."

3. After substantial arguments once the Court has declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of judgment and order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench in Writ C No. 33252 of 2022 (Ishtiaq Hussain and another v/s. State of U.P. and 4 others), which is duly approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3004/2023 ( (Ishtiaq Hussain and another v/s. State of U.P. and others) vide order dated 17.02.2023, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, "while we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, we clarify that the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation and the impugned judgment would not, in any way, bar the petitioners from invoking their rights, if any, against respondent no. 4 - Kallu and respondent no.5 - Lallu or their legal representatives, in accordance with law. ". Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he is not inclined to press the writ petition and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.

4. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

Order Date :- 8.8.2023

A.K.Srivastava