Dismissed

Ram Prasad v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2020WRIC/10265/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, holding a fisheries lease, sought writ relief to remove illegal constructions by private respondents on leased pond land. The Court held that such trespassing must be addressed via suit under Section 151 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no direction was issued for removal of constructions or preservation of possession.

Ram Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10265 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udayan Nandan,Sr. Advocate(Shashi Nandan)

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Subhra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appears for the Gaon Sabha.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶8

"(i) issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to undertake immediate steps to ensure removal of the illegal constructions/obstructions raised by the respondent nos.8 to 12 over Gata No.338, Village-Dattapur, TehsilPhoolpur, District Azamgarh, area 0.572 hect. which is recorded as a pond in the revenue record.

¶9

(ii) issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.8 to 12 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over Gata No.338, Village-Dattapur, TehsilPhoolpur, District Azamgarh, area 0.572 hect. which is recorded as a pond in the revenue record."

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted a fisheries lease in the year 2017 that is valid till the year 2027. It is alleged that the private respondents are illegally making constructions and encroachments on the pond in respect of which the lease was granted in his favour and, therefore, they are liable to be evicted by the Government.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Chapter X of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, particularly to Section 151 of the Code, which are as follows:-

¶12

"151. Trespass on land held by a Government lessee . - (1) If a person takes or retains possession over any land, let out to a Government lessee, otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease and without the consent of such lessee, such person shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Government lessee concerned and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rates prescribed.

¶13

(2) The State Government shall be made a party, but the Gram Panchayat shall not be a necessary party to a suit instituted under sub-section (1).

¶14

(3) If a suit for eviction referred to in sub-section (1) is not instituted by a Government lessee or a decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided therefor, then the following consequences shall, with effect from the expiry of such period ensue, namely-

¶15

(a) the person taking or retaining possession over the land let out to the Government lessee shall be liable to eviction in accordance with section 150;

¶16

(b) the right, title and interest of the Government lessee in such land shall stand extinguished and the term of his lease shall be deemed to have expired."

¶17

Under the circumstances, it is for the petitioner to take suitable steps under Section 151 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the private respondents.

¶18

This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶19

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.8.2020 SK

¶21

Digitally signed by Justice Jayant Banerji Date: 2020.08.28 15:11:59 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Prasad v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad v. State of U.P. and 10 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

Babbu and 3 Others Vs Union of India and Another

Pranav Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs State of U P and 14 Others

Indrajeet and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chhote Lalla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anis Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others