Disposed

Sidhnath Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2020WRIC/7904/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that issuing a writ against private individuals for alleged encroachment on public land was not the appropriate remedy. It disposed of the petition, directing the impleaded Assistant Collector/Tehsildar to expedite the already instituted proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the impleaded Assistant Collector/Tehsildar to hear and decide the pending cases expeditiously within four months.

Sidhnath Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7904 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sidhnath Chauhan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

In view of the submissions advanced, let the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil Madhuwan, District Mau be impleaded as respondent no.4.

¶6

The present petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶7

" i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to vacate the public utility land being Gata No. 97 (chaknali) and Gata No. 98 (Chakroad) within a stipulated time as fix by this Hon'ble Court."

¶8

Upon instructions received, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that in view of the allegation of encroachment on Gata No. 97, a proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been instituted by the Gaon Sabha against Premchandra, Awadhesh, Vikram, Pramod, Arvind, Surendra and Ashok and with respect to Gata No. 98, against Ashok Chauhan. Those proceedings are claimed to be numbered as T. 201915510301826, T. 201915510301827, T. 201915510301828, T. 201915510301829, T. 201915510301830, T. 201915510301831, T. 201915510301832 and T. 201915510301833 , respectively.

¶9

While no writ may be issued, as claimed by the present petitioners, who are private individuals, at the same time, the instructions produced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel indicate a prima facie case of encroachment over public land.

¶10

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit, it is disposed of with a direction that the aforesaid cases, being T. 201915510301826, T. 201915510301827, T. 201915510301828, T. 201915510301829, T. 201915510301830, T. 201915510301831, T.

¶11

201915510301832 and T. 201915510301833 be heard and decided by respondent no.4 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.7.2020/AHA

Sidhnath Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhnath Chauhan and Another 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

Vijay Harijan Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Susma Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kripa Shankar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Narvdeshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others