Rambriksh Chaudhary v. Sanjay Maurya
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. September 24, 2025 SK Goswami (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Judgment
It is contended that father of the petitioner, Jannu Chaudhary had initially approached this Court through Writ Petition No.35786 of 1995 seeking quashing of the order passed by Ceiling Authorities. The writ petition was decided on 14.07.2005 holding that after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 was introduced and adopted by State of Uttar Pradesh. Proceedings under the Act had been abated. In view of the said facts, writ petition was disposed of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order having been passed in favour of his father, the name has not been mutated in the revenue records. An application has been made by petitioner, which is pending consideration.
As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, or calling for counter affidavit, the writ petition is being disposed of requiring the petitioner to make a comprehensive application disclosing all the facts and annexing the order passed by the writ Court before respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Gorakhpur within one month from today, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order within a period of next two months.
Operative part
With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. September 24, 2025 SK Goswami (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Repeal Act, 1999.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.