Allahabad High Court
Durga Prasad Yadav & Others vs State Of U.P.Thru. Addl. Secy. Revenue, ... on 24 June, 2021
Bench: Rajan Roy, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11888 of 2021 Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Yadav & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Addl. Secy. Revenue, Lko & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Standing counsel for the State.
On 15.06.2021, we had passed an order calling upon the Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter. We had left all pleas open for consideration.
Today, the learned Standing counsel informs the Court that the land of the petitioners was purchased in the first phase by the Director Uddyaan and although the petitioners claim to have an order under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, in his favour, but, when the gata of the petitioners was visited it was found that there is no non-agricultural activity on the said land, therefore, the order itself is contrary to the provisions of Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. To this, the counsel for petitioners says that in the adjacent land buildings exist. He admits that on his land there is no construction.
Learned Standing counsel also informs that as regards the purchase of land of other persons is concerned that took place in the second phase and the decision was taken on 29.09.2020, whereas the land of the petitioners was purchased in pursuance of decision dated 02.08.2019. He further says that on the land of other persons, which was purchased in the second phase buildings exist, therefore, the rate was fixed accordingly.
We are of the opinion that it is a case of execution of sale deed by the parties and dispute arising therefrom. If any change in the conditions thereof is being demanded by the petitioners then the remedy, if at all, is by way of a civil suit and not before the Writ Court, therefore, considering the facts and issues involved, we dismiss this petition but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to avail other remedies as per law.
Order Date :- 24.6.2021 Vinay/-