Dismissed

Lokesh Kumar Khurana and Another v. State of U.P. through Secretary,Urban Planning Devlp. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2020WPIL/253/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL petition seeking mandamus to restrain encroachment on public land. The bench held there was no just reason to interfere as the source of the petitioners' possession of a sale deed photocopy remained unexplained.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking directions to remove encroachment and punish responsible officers was dismissed.

Lokesh Kumar Khurana and Another Vs State of U.P. through… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 253 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Lokesh Kumar Khurana And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary,Urban Planning Devlp. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhawan Kumar Pandey,Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

This petition for writ is preferred to have following reliefs:-

¶6

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to take all necessary steps and to conclude the proceeding against encroacher of public land belongs to Khasara No. 373 area about 0.190 Hectare situated at Chhipi Tank Crossing, DistrictMeerut recorded as the State Property (Yehtamam Sahab Collector Bahadur.

¶7

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents that do all necessary steps to secure the public land and also take prompt action against the encoacher from the said land.

¶8

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take necessary action against the officers who permitted encroachment and construction over the public land.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no. 4 is running a hospital in the name of " Mritunjay Hospital" at Chippi Tank Crossing, Meerut. The hospital is constructed on an agricultural land which is not open for any commercial use.

¶10

On going through the record, we find that the sale deed of a land in favour of respondent no. 6 has been executed and the hospital appears to be constructed on the land aforesaid.

¶11

Be that as it may, without entering into that issue, we do not find any just reason to interfere in the matter by invoking the public interest litigation jurisdiction in the instant matter. As a matter of fact, we failed to understand as to how the petitioners are having a photocopy of the sale deed issued on 02nd February, 2008 and it is nowhere disclosed as to whom the photocopy was given by the office of the Sub-Registrar.

¶12

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.2.2020

¶14

Rameez

¶15

(Samit Gopal,J.) (Govind Mathur,C.J.)

Lokesh Kumar Khurana and Another v. State of U.P. through Secretary,Urban Planning Devlp. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Kumar Khurana and Another v. State of U.P. through Secretary,Urban Planning Devlp. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Omwati Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and Others

Gopal Singh Khati Vs Regional Food Controller Meerut Region and Others

Ram Dev Sharma Vs Director of Technical Education and 2 Others

union of india and 2 others Vs ajay vir singh and 4 others

Union of India and 2 Others Vs Raza Raini

The C/M Buddha Intermediate College and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Others