Mismanagement in working of tehsil Sadar causing troublesome to decree holder


 Grievance Status for registration number : GOVUP/E/2024/0044908

Grievance Concerns To

Name Of Complainant

Sita Devi

Date of Receipt

16/07/2024

Received By Ministry/Department

Uttar Pradesh

Grievance Description

The matter concerns the working of the sub-divisional magistrate Sadar, due to irrational dealings of the staff of tehsil Sadar judgement passed by the most respected civil court is going to be meaningless.

ORDER- This order is unilaterally issued against the defendants in this manner that the defendants are prohibited through this order that they should not create any kind of disturbance in the possession, ownership and possession of the land A, B, C, D and the houses, sitting room, well, tree etc. and courtyard land situated therein and neither demolish the houses, rooms, well, temple etc. nor do any construction.

Date: 16.10.2015

(Jyotsna Yadav) ad 16/10/15

Additional Civil Judge (Judiciary) First, Mirzapur. Court No.-13:

Today this decision was pronounced in open court by me under my signature

Date: 16.10.2015

Additional Civil Judge (Judiciary) First Mirzapur. Court No.-13.

(Jyotsana Yadav) 16/10/15

Court Additional Civil Judge (Judiciary), First Mirzapur. Court No.-13 Present: Jyotsna Yadav, Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service.

Original Case No.-659 of 1991

2. Mukhu age about 45 years - deceased

2/1. Sita Devi age about 45 years widow of Mukhu

2/2. Lal Bahadur age about 16 years, son of Mukhu

2/3. Vijay Bahadur age about 14 years, son of Mukhu, 2/4. Bihari Lal alias Munnu age about 12 years, son of Mukhu

2/5. Somaru Bargr about 10 years

2/6. Lavkushal age about 6 years

All minor sons of late Mukhu through guardian Sita Devi mother of minor son from 2/2 to 2/6

Plaintiffs

Vs

Kallu age about 40 years son Metal resident Nakhara Tappa 84 and District Mirzapur. Pargana Kantit Tehsil

Defendants

Ex parte decision -

The suit presented by the plaintiffs has been instituted for permanent injunction against the defendant.

Short submissions of the applicant are as follows.

1- During the pendency of litigation the defendant sold this sub judice land to Rakesh S/O Jokhan resident of same address which was illegal.

2- On the basis of the record of the registry Rakesh S/O Jokhan creates disturbance which is not only illegal but also constituted contempt of court.

3-lis pendens- under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. This Latin term means pending litigation and refers to the principle that any property involved in a lawsuit cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit while the litigation is ongoing.

4- The main purpose of this doctrine is to prevent one party from undermining the legal process by transferring the property in question, which could complicate or prolong the litigation.

5- At present, the title has been decided by the most respected court in favour of the applicant and then the claim of the illegal claimant constitutes the contempt of court and whoever supporting the stand are also constituting the contempt of court so action must be taken against the illegal claimant.

The decision of the most respected court is attached to the grievance in the form of PDF document. This is a humble request of the applicant to most respected sir to take action on the representation of the applicant so that rule of law must be followed.

Grievance Document

Current Status

Grievance received   

Date of Action

16/07/2024

Officer Concerns To

Forwarded to

Uttar Pradesh

Officer Name

Shri Bhaskar Pandey (Joint Secretary)

Organisation name

Uttar Pradesh

Contact Address

Chief Minister Secretariat , Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow

Email Address

bhaskar.12214@gov.in

Contact Number

05222226350




Beerbhadra Singh

To write blogs and applications for the deprived sections who can not raise their voices to stop their human rights violations by corrupt bureaucrats and executives.

1 Comments

Your view points inspire us

  1. There must be compliance of the order passed by the civil court in the matter so that subsequent dispute may not arise in the matter because of clear cut judgement passed by the concerned magistrate.

    ReplyDelete
Previous Post Next Post