Petitioner challenged illegal constructions on land recorded as public rasta. The single-judge bench held that the alternative remedy under Section 25 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006 made this a fit case neither for fact-finding nor for Writ Jurisdiction.
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
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. - 34
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 5176 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dinesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Order Date :- 25.1.2019 Manoj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can entertain a writ petition as PIL when alternative statutory remedy lies under Section 25 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006.
Whether the alleged illegal encroachment or unauthorized construction requires factual investigation unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Singh
State Of U P
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
