Allahabad High Court
Ramyatan vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 27 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96445-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14049 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramyatan
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amish Kumar Srivastava,Suresh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.R. Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Instructions filed today are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri K. Asraf, learned counsel appearing for Gorakhpur Development Authority.
3. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:
(a) Issue an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the publication published in Daily News Paper on 11.02.2023 with regard to CL-7 prepared by the Respondent No. 3.
(b) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus staying the effect and operation of the publication published in Daily News Paper on 11.02.2023 with regard to CL-7 prepared by the Respondent No. 3.
(c) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to decide the objection of the petitioner dated 06.03.2023.
(d) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question.
4. The relevant press note annexed at page 73 is quoted as under:
?????????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? 08.02.2023 ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ????/ ??????? ?????? ?????? (CL-7) ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????????/ ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ???????????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? 30 ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????/ ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ? ???? ????
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land in question was declared surplus and the said order was quashed by this Court. The respondent-State lost the case even before Hon'ble Apex Court and even a review application filed before the Apex Court was rejected. Submission therefore is that the aforesaid publication in respect of the property in question is incorrect and, therefore, the number of the land involved herein has to be deleted from the ceiling records.
6. We find that by the above quoted press memo only the information has been sought from the petitioner and from the instructions placed before this Court, proceedings are still pending and nothing adverse has been done against the petitioner.
7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that endeavour are being made by the State authorities to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
8. In such view of the matter, we find that this position could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing adverse has been done against the petitioner. The present petition is based only on the apprehension of the petitioner that adverse may come in future. We find that the press memo is clear to the effect that only information/judgments of either Supreme Court/High Court/any other court are being sought for the purpose of correcting the ceiling records.
9. We also find that the petition has been filed after a lapse of about one year and till date admittedly nothing adverse has been done against the petitioner.
10. The petition based on apprehension is misconceived. The same is accordingly dismissed.
11. In case anything comes against the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail the remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Madhurima
