Allowed

Krishnapal v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018WPIL/4744/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a PIL seeking directions to remove encroachments on a pond in Muzaffarnagar. It ordered respondents to restore the pond's original position and remove illegal structures within one month, citing apex court precedents on recovery of illegal possession and ensuring public health interests.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate Muzaffarnagar, to remove encroachment on the pond land and restore its original position within one month.

Krishnapal Vs State of U P and 5 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 30 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 4744 of 2018 Petitioner :- Krishnapal Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhawani Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶2

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents no. 1 to 4and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5.

¶3

Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to restore the original position of the pond situated in Gata no. 547/2/1 area 3.478 Hectare and Gata No. 547/2/2 area about 0.036 Hectare situated at Village and Post Mehalaki, Pargana Joily, Tehsil Jansath, district Muzaffarnagar and to remove the encroachment made by private respondents in pond over Gata no. 547/2/1 area 3.478 Hectare and Gata No. 547/2/2 area about 0.036 Hectare situated at Village and Post Mehalaki, Pargana Joily, Tehsil Jansath, district Muzaffarnagar and further direction may also be given to the authorities concern from changing the nature of pond in the interest of public at large.

¶4

Drawing attention to Annexure-4 to the writ petition it was submitted that the illegal encroachment was found on the pond land and vide order dated 1.9.2017 the District Magistrate has already directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to remove illegal encroachment after using necessary police force. Attention was also drawn to Annexure-5 to the writ petition to indicate that the respondent no. 3, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide its letter dated 24.7.2014 has observed that the respondent no. 6 herein Bharat Singh son of Ramji Lal is again and again encroaching pond land and lodging of first information report against him was also recommended. Submission is that nothing has been done even till date and large number of persons fell ill due to illegal blockage of flow of water to the pond which spread in the village. He further submitted that again a representation has been moved in the year 2018 in view of the fact that in the year 2016-17 about 45 persons died because of wide spread illness.

¶5

In view of the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate Muzaffarnagar to look into the matter and strictly comply with the orders of the Court regarding removal of encroachment on the pond land in view of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 11 SCC 396; Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamla Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3215 and in a judgement passed in PIL No. 63380 of 2012 (Prem Singh vs. State of UP and others) , preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided there is no other legal impediment.

¶6

A reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Khyal Singh and others vs. State of UP and others, 2008 (138) RD 280 wherein it has been observed that even a long standing instruction does not confer any right to the person in illegal possession.

¶7

No order as to costs.

¶8

Order Date :- 12.11.2018 p.s.

Krishnapal v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnapal v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyapal Singh Vs Firm Swastik Plaza and 4 Others

Smt. Jhumi Kulshreshtha and Another Vs Shiv Shankar Agrawal

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Bindu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Uday Bhan Yadav and Another Vs District Magistrate and 12 Others

Jai Ma Vindvasini Khadi Gram Udyog Sansta Vs State of U P and 4 Others