Heera Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the PIL for lack of a mandatory declaration as required by Allahabad High Court Rules, without engaging with the merits of the encroachment plea.
The High Court dismissed the PIL for lack of a mandatory declaration as required by Allahabad High Court Rules, without engaging with the merits of the encroachment plea.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1006 of 2019
Petitioner :- Heera Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Omar Zamin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Petitioner has preferred present Public Interest Litigation for the following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to remove the encroachment of respondent nos.4 & 5 from Araji No.52Ka, area 0.651 hectare, situated at Village Pure Durgee, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to decide expeditiously the application of the petitioner dated 12.3.2019 (Annexure No.1) to the writ petition) within the period so fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
Petitioner has not made a declaration in terms of Sub-rule 3-A of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
In view of the above, we decline to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to file a better petition.
Order Date :- 10.5.2019 S. Singh
Heera Lal
State Of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court