Allahabad High Court
WRIT PETITION 3981 of 2010 on 17 November 2009
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 3981 of 2010
Mihi Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State-respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 17.11.2009 passed respondent no.2, Deputy Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur and order dated 30.07.2009 passed by respondent no.3, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/Additional Collector Kannauj.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registered agreement to sale was executed in his favour but without possession. The possession of the land in question shall be delivered after the execution of registration of the sale deed, which will be done within a period of one year. Some dispute arose about the Bhumidhari land in question, therefore, the said agreement to sale was never acted upon. On the basis of complaint made that the possession have forcibly taken place by the petitioner, the present proceedings have been initiated. He, further submits that ex-parte report was prepared and submitted on the basis of which the Collector have initiated the proceeding and notice under Section 147 (A) was issued to the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed on 30.07.2009. Against the ex-parte impugned order, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the registered agreement to sale was not acted upon as no sale deed has been executed within the time stipulated therein. The instant proceedings against the petitioner is bad. He further submits that the entire proceeding is initiated on the basis of ex-parte report which cannot be relied upon. Therefore, prayer for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question, and that the petitioner cannot deny this fact. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that agreement to sale was executed and after payment of certain amount, it was required to execute the sale deed within a period of one year. The petitioner has stated that no possession have been taken over in pursuance of the agreement to sale. On the said fact, a pointed query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, once the agreement to sale has not been acted upon and the petitioner is not in possession why he is pursuing the present writ petition, the petitioner could not reply the same.
8. However, the impugned orders indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question. This fact has not been disputed either before this Court, before the lower authorities, or in any paragraphs of the writ petition. Once a finding that petitioner is in possession, the present proceedings cannot be said to be arbitrary.
9. No interference called for.
10. In view of above, the present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is accordingly, dismissed.
September 23, 2025Imtiyaz
(Piyush Agrawal,J.)