Disposed

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 7 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2018WPIL/4593/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Assistant Collector to inquire into allegations of illegal encroachment on public land under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code. The court ordered removal of encroachments within one month if allegations are found true, clarified no adjudication on merits was made pending inquiry, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Assistant Collector to inquire under UP Revenue Code and remove encroachments if allegations found true within one month.

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 4593 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Sri Diwakar Singh has accepted notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.

¶6

Heard Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Kumar Shukla, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶7

On 22.10.2018 following order was passed:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent nos.4 to 8 have illegally encroached the public utility land/pond. The details of which are given hereinbelow:

¶10

"1. Plot no.29 area 0.0400 hec. manure pit mauja Shyampur.

¶11

Plot no. 201 area 0.1609 hec. Khalihan mauja Singraurpur.

¶12

Plot no. 187 area 0.0913 hec. village pond mauja Singrarpur.

¶13

Plot no. 44 area 0.3200 Banja (sport) mauja Mirjanpur uprahar.

¶14

Plot no. 212 area 0.0800 New Fallow mauja Singrarupur uprahar."

¶15

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the local authorities are colluded with the respondent nos. 4 to 8 and are not taking any interest for removal of illegal encroachment.

¶16

Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel represents respondent no.9 Gram Sabha and learned standing counsel Sri Shashidhar Upadhya represents respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶17

In this regard, learned standing counsel prays for and is allowed one week's time to seek instructions from the District Magistrate, Allahabad and place the same before this Court on 30th October 2018.

¶18

Put up on 30th October 2018 in the additional cause list."

¶19

Pursuant to the aforesaid order learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of the instruction dated 30.10.2018, which is taken on record. According to the instruction proceedings are

¶20

pending against encroachers under Section 122 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act or Rule 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, it would serve no purpose to keep the writ petition pending, and therefore, it is directed that Assistant Collector shall inquire into the allegations made by the petitioner after following the procedure prescribed under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. In case the allegations of the petitioner are found to be true the Assistant Collector shall ensure that the encroachments over the Gaon Sabha land are removed within a period of one month thereafter unless the order of Assistant Collector is stayed by any superior authority or court in any appeal or revision filed against the order of Assistant Collector.

¶22

It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the claim as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.11.2018

¶25

Lalit Shukla

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Durgesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Tanveer Fatma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyapal Singh Vs Firm Swastik Plaza and 4 Others

Smt. Jhumi Kulshreshtha and Another Vs Shiv Shankar Agrawal

Raveesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others