LALITA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. REVENUE LKO. AND OTHERS
WRIC/3442/2025 · 2025-04-10
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133167 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133167 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20230-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3442 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lalita Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey,Sandhya Bharti Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the 1st line of para-7 the word "how" has correctly been used, or it is the world "now", which was intended to be used. The counsel fairly submitted that it is the word "now". We then asked to him as to whether Sanjay Jhunjhunwala and K.M. Scientific Research Centre are recorded in respect of the land in question at present or not? as in para-8 it has been so stated, though vaguely, he fairly submitted that they are recorded, but he does not know as to how they have been recorded. If the case of the petitioner is that there is no order for recording the name of opp. party Nos. 3 & 4 in respect of the land bearing Gata Nos. 695 and 698, then the petitioner can initiate proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Pleadings are not very clear. As regards opp. party No. 5 there is a vague allegation with regard to encroachment in para-13, which is not sufficient for us to interfere. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue other remedies, prescribed in law. With the above observations/directions this writ petition is
disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date :- 10.4.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench