The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 regarding interference in _gaon sabha_ land, leaving the petitioner to approach the Revenue Officer under section 67 of the U.P. Revene Code, 2006. The writ petition was finally disposed.
Petitioner directed to approach the Revenue Officer under section 67 of the U.P. Revene Code, 2006.
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. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7583 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ramagya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and have perused the record.
From the record, it appears that the respondent no.5 is interfering in the property of gaon sabha land and this court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However we leave it open to the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions of section 67 of the U.P. Revene Code, 2006.
The writ petition is thus disposed of finally. No costs.
Order Date :- 3.3.2020 rk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 regarding interference in _gaon sabha_ land.
Whether the petitioner should be directed to seek remedy under section 67 of the U.P. Revene Code, 2006.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramagya
State Of U.P.
4 Others
Bharati Sapru
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
