Dismissed

Asha Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2018WRIC/13422/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Asha Devi approached this Court via writ petition assailing an ejectment notice under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Since a final order was already passed by the revenue authorities on 17th April 2018, the Court held that the petitioner has the statutory remedy of appeal and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy of appeal.

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13422 of 2018 Petitioner :- Asha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Ravindra Nath Yadav

¶2

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶3

Order on Impleadment Application

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

This is an application filed by Sri R.N. Yadav, Advocate for impleading Jaswant, Pramod, Ram Narayan, Sanjay Chauhan and Chandra Pratap as respondent nos. 6 to 10.

¶6

This application is allowed.

¶7

Let necessary impleadment be carried out today itself.

¶8

Order of Memo of Writ Petition

¶9

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent-Gaon Sabha and Sri R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the newly added respondents.

¶10

Petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice dated 17th February, 2018 issued by the fourth respondent (Tehsildar, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur) under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, whereby the petitioner has been asked to vacate the possession over the plot no. 326, which has been illegally encroached by her within fifteen days of the notice and she has also been required to pay damages.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two plots being Plot No. 233 and Plot No. 232 recorded as Pasuchar in the revenue record are belonging to the Gaon Sabha land. In the year 1996, the said plots have allotted to the petitioner for running an institution. Since then the institution is running. The said plots on the basis of consolidation operation converted into a new number being Plot No. 326.

¶12

It is further stated that when the State Government has asked the District Magistrates to remove all encroachments from the lands of All Gram Sabhas, petitioner has made an application before the competent authorities for exchange of her plot no. 254 from plot no. 326 but the same is still pending. An application has also been made before the State Government for the said purpose, which is also pending.

¶13

It is further submitted that since petitioner is running an institution for public affairs on the said plot and she is ready and willing to exchange her plot from the plot of the Gaon Sabha, where the institution is running, petitioner prays that the respondents may be directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot in question because an institution is running for public affairs on the said plot and the request of the petitioner for exchange of her plot is also pending before the State authorities.

¶14

Sri R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for newly added respondents has informed the Court that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has now been finalized against her and an order has been passed in that regard on 17th April, 2018, a copy of which has been produced before this Court. The same is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner may be asked to assail the same before appropriate forum.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that once final order has been passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code and the same can very well be assailed by way of appeal under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, this Court is not required to proceed any further.

¶16

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶17

(M. C. Tripathi, J.) Order Date :- 27.4.2018

¶18

Sushil/-

Asha Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Rama Shanker (Died) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ghirau Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

pramod shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Satyaveer and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mastraj Vs State of U P and 6 Others