SMT. SANGEETA PANDEY AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY./PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT LKO. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIC/7692/2025 · 2025-08-11
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 156876 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 156876 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46657 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7692 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Sangeeta Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Tripathi,Rama Soni Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indrajeet Shukla Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 03.07.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 160 of the Municipalities Act, 1916 has been rejected.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners claimed to be the successor-in-interest of one Girja Shankar Pandey. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, Girja Shankar Pandey had died and prior thereto executed a sale deed. Challenging the said sale deed, the petitioners have instituted Case No. 3254 of 2020, which is said to be pending. The appellate court has observed that the rights inter se in between the parties would have to be adjudicated in the said suit. The entries in the municipal record are only taxation entries and cannot be seen as determining the rights inter se in between the parties
4. No error can be seen with the said finding. No good ground for interference is made out.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench