VINAY KUMAR MALL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri S.M. Shukla, learned Counsel for the Nagar Nigam. The petitioner had earlier come up before this Court contending that his Plot No. 28-cha was wrongly occupied by the Nagar Nigam by fixing pillars in order to establish a cremation ground. The petitioner's Writ Petition No. 19746 of 2014 was disposed of by us on 3.4.2014 by the following judgment:

(2.) Thereafter demarcation proceedings have been carried out which the petitioner alleges is not exactly in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the demarcation also does not appear to be correct.

(3.) However, Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel, contends that the demarcation does indicate the separate area of Plot No. 28-Cha, but neither possession has been handed over to the petitioner nor any further action has been taken and, therefore, a mandamus has been prayed for to deliver possession of the said plot according to the boundary mentioned in the sale-deed of the petitioner dated 10.6.1993.