Disposed

Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U P and 28 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2018WPIL/4710/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions to remove encroachments from specified pond lands and initiate proceedings against unauthorized occupants. The Court directed the District Magistrate to verify records and initiate proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P.Revenue Code, 2006, to be concluded within three months, and ordered removal of encroachments on Gaon Sabha land within one month thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Direct court to verify revenue records, initiate proceedings under Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code within three months, and remove encroachments on Gaon Sabha land within one month.

Om Prakash Mishra Vs State of U P and 28 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 4710 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Mishra Respondent :- State Of U P And 28 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh,Upendra Kumar Pandey,U0085

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5-Gaon Sabha and Sri Upendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove unauthorised encroachment from the pond in regard to Khata No.98/0-3250 hectare, Khata No.82/1-3130 hectare and Khata No.116/0-3260 hectare recorded as Pond in the revenue record situate in village Birapur Dohbaha, Pargana Kewai, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad and for a mandamus directing the respondent concerned to initiate proper legal proceedings against the respondent nos.8 to 20 who have unauthorized occupants of village Birapur Dohbaha, Pargana Kewai, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad for causing revenue loss to the State in the interest of justice.

¶7

Pursuant to the order dated 1.11.2018 Sri Upendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.6 has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the question answer as Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit that the Khatauni of the Fasli Year 1359 Mauja Veerapur Dhobla, Pargana Kewai, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad is not available on record. This fact is being seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention to the Khatauni annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition wherein the entry dated 27.2.2018 has been made on the basis of Khatauni of Fasli Year 1359 according to which plot in question is a pond land.

¶8

With the supplementary affidavait dated 12.11.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed a certified copy of Khasara for Fasli Year 1359 available in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶9

This requires scrutiny of the original records, which in the opinion of the Court can properly done by respondent No.2, the District Magistrate, Allahabad by summoning the original record.

¶10

In case he is satisfied that a case for proceeding against the respondents herein has been made out as they have encroached upon the pond land, he shall direct for initiating proceeding against the encroachers under Section 67 of the U.P.Revenue Code, 2006. This exercise may be done by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, respondent no.3, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶11

In case it is found that the proceedings are liable to be initiated under Section 67 of the of the U.P.Revenue Code, the same shall be concluded,

¶12

after the inquiry is made within a further period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, provided there is no other legal impediment.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 19.11.2018 AKJ

Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U P and 28 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U P and 28 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

Chondhar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Abdul Haq Khusoro Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kamala Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gangotri Devi Vs Pargana Adhikari and 3 Others

Arshad Husain Vs State of U P and 6 Others