Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 102615 (ALL)

SATISH CHANDRA @ RAJU AND 12 OTHERS v. State of UP AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/33062/2024 · 2025-01-27

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Donadi Ramesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13494-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33062 of 2024 Petitioner :- Satish Chandra @ Raju And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 10122 of 2024, which was disposed of vide following order passed on 28.03.2024:- "1. Upon hearing Shri Ram Lakhan Kanoujia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perusal of record, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction, subject to the petitioners filing their individual replies to the individual notices received by them, dated 28.2.2024, within a period of two weeks from today supported by their personal affidavits annexing thereto all relevant documents on which they may seek to rely, those replies if submitted before the respondent no. 2, the same may be dealt with and decided on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of compliance shown by the petitioners. 2. Subject to due compliance made by the petitioners or till the disposal of the objection, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures may be adopted against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned notices dated 28.02.2024." 2. Pursuant to the above order passed, petitioners' claim has been considered and rejected by the concerned Executive Engineer vide his order dated 20.05.2024, which is assailed in the present petition. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argues that the fact that allotment of land was made in favour of petitioners in a specific scheme of State on account of their sterilization has not been adverted to in the order impugned. Various documents have been annexed, according to which, allotment was made to petitioners between 1987 and 1991, which has not been taken note of. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Executive Engineer fails to meet the requirement of law, inasmuch as petitioners' grievance is not adverted to on merits. 3. Learned Standing Counsel states that such issues of fact can be got examined by the District Magistrate, Auraiya, at the first instance. 4. We have perused the order impugned, which records that land in possession of the petitioners stands recorded in the name of State and that petitioners have no right to claim permission for construction etc. There is, however, no consideration as to whether petitioners were allotted land in any scheme of State for sterilization etc. To what extent allotment of land was made in favour of petitioners and on what terms they were inducted over the land are aspects, which needs examination. 5. We find that since there is no consideration on such issues, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition, without inviting any counter affidavit, at this stage. 6. In the facts of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with following directions:- (i) Each petitioner is permitted to represent his individual grievance before the District Magistrate, Auraiya, annexing all materials in support of his claim, alongwith certified copy of this order, within two weeks from today. (ii) The concerned District Magistrate will get the facts verified with regard to legality and terms of petitioners' allotment in terms of the scheme, as is alleged by them. (iii) The aspect as to whether petitioners were validly inducted in possession over the part of land in terms of such scheme would be accorded consideration at the level of District Magistrate concerned. An appropriate reasoned speaking order in that regard would be passed within a further period of three months, thereafter. (iv). Till an appropriate order is passed by the District Magistrate, Auraiya in respect of petitioners' right to continue over the land in question, we direct the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of possession over the land in question. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Ashok Kr. Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad