Smt Seema Gupta [ U/A 227 ] vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 5 July, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Smt Seema Gupta [ U/A 227 ] vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 5 July, 2010
Court No. - 24

Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 3681 of 2010

Petitioner :- Smt Seema Gupta [ U/A 227 ]
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko.And
Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Vishnu Dev Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Society, namely,
Santha Royal Shiksha Sansthan (Lucknow College of Technology and
Management), Village Kankaha, Tehsil Mohan Lal Ganj, Rae Bareli
Road, Lucknow is a Society registered under the Societies Registration
Act on 3.1.1998 and is being renewed as and when the same is due.
Lastly, the Society was renewed on 8.6.2008 which is valid upto
3.1.2013 and the petitioner is the President of the Society. In order to
run the institute, the petitioner has purchased a part of land and a sale
deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner on 15.12.2005.
Further submission of the petitioner is that at the time of purchase of
land, it was agricultural and as such, the petitioner preferred an
application under Section 143 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act for the change of land use before the opposite party No.2,
who in turn, sought a report from the opposite party No.3, pursuant to
which, the opposite party No.3 submitted his report on 28.6.2006. As
per requirements of the College, the petitioner was constructing the
boundary wall, but with mala fide intention, the opposite party No.4
submitted an application under Section 41 of the U. P. Land Revenue
Act with a request to demarcate the land which was registered as case
bearing No. 243 of 2010 Smt. Mandakini Prabha versus Smt. Seema
Gupta.

Petitioner’s Counsel prays that interest of justice would suffice, if the
opposite party No.2 is directed to decide the case No. 243 of 2010
keeping in view of the report submitted by the opposite party No.3,
expeditiously, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the opposite
party No.2 is directed to decide the case No. 243 of 2010, taking into
consideration the report submitted by the opposite party No.3, within a
maximum period of two months, from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order.

With the above directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 5.7.2010
lakshman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *