SMT. MUNNI DEVI AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/4200/2025 · 2025-05-04
Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta
Original Suitbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18384 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18384 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71179-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4200 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Munni Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishi Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J
1. The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents no. 2 and 3 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 02.08.2024, wherein the petitioners made prayer for release of the mortgaged property from mortgage and to permit the petitioners to substitute the mortgage with F.D.R.
2. The mortgage was made by the ancestors of the petitioners to secure payment of compensation for the acquired land to them. The prayer for release of mortgaged property has been made on the ground that civil suit for cancellation of sale deed of the acquired land in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners filed by one Virendra Singh has been decided in favour of the petitioners.
3. From the record, it transpires that Virendra Singh filed Original Suit No.304 of 1990 against Chirmauli and the ancestors of the petitioners for cancellation of sale deed. The said suit was initially decreed ex parte on 13.02.2014. Ram Ji Lal, the ancestor of petitioners no.1, 2 and 4 and Beeri Singh-petitioner no.3 filed Civil Appeal No.800102 of 2014. The appeal has been allowed and, although, the judgement dated 13.02.2014 has been set aside but the matter has been remitted to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that the sale deed on basis of which compensation was paid has been approved by the Court.
4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners states that he is not pressing the writ
petition.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed at this stage. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad