Remanded

Lallu Jan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2019WRIC/19748/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that disputed land boundaries require proper demarcation per UP Revenue Code before encroachment conclusions. Writ of mandamus issued directing authorities to demarcate plots within six months while maintaining petitioner's possession.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued for demarcation of disputed plots within six months; petitioner's possession shall not be disturbed.

Lallu Jan Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19748 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Lallu Jan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By the order impugned passed under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code in Case No. D- 201812130001378/2018,Lallu Jan S/o Kallu Jan Vs. Gaon Sabha, learned appellate court has confirmed the order passed by the learned trial court dated 12.01.2018. The order passed by the learned appellate court dated 10.12.2018 confirmed the findings of fact returned by the learned trial court that the plot no. 430 with area of 0.3160 hectares situated in Village Rukampur, Tehsil and District Bareilly is shown as a school in the revenue records. Learned appellate court further upholds the finding of the learned trial court that the petitioner has made an encroachment to the extent of 232 square meters in the plot no. 430.

¶6

Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not made any encroachment. The authorities erred in law by not taking out proceedings to demarcate the disputed plots of land in accordance with law.

¶7

I see merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegations of an encroachment are contested and the boundaries of plots of lands are disputed. In this situation, it is incumbent upon the State authorities to carry out a proper demarcation of plots in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the UP. Revenue

¶8

Code, 2006.

¶9

The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2Assistant Collector 1st Class/Tehsildar (Judicial) Bareilly, District-Bareilly.

¶10

A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2-Assistant Collector 1st Class/Tehsildar (Judicial) Bareilly, DistrictBareilly to carry out the proceedings for demarcation of the plots in dispute to determine with finality as to whether the petitioner is actually encroached upon the plots of land or not. The demarcation exercise shall be completed strictly in accordance with law within period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The State Authorities shall demarcate the exact limit of the State land and plots in dispute. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing during the process as prescribed by law.

¶11

Till demarcation exercise of the plots in land is carried out, the possession of the petitioner from the plots in dispute shall not be disturbed.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed off.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.6.2019 Ashish Tripathi

Lallu Jan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallu Jan v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Syed Samreen (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukhdev Ram Vs State of U P and 2 Others

M/S Famous Bobin Works and Another Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and 3 Others

Kiran Pandey Vs State of U P and 10 Others

Sapna Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Swati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others