Disposed

Ram Ashish Verma and 2 Others v. State of U P and 9 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2021WPIL/106/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL regarding encroachment of public utility land. Held that no useful purpose is served by pending the petition. Petitioner directed to seek redressal under Section 67 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 by moving a representation to the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to file representation under Section 67 U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 for redressal of grievances.

Ram Ashish Verma and 2 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 106 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Ashish Verma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajitabh Choubey,B.B.Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

1.Heard Mr.J.P.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Ajitabh Choubey learned counsel representing respondent-5 to 10 who are available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 is also available. No notice of this writ petition has been served upon learned counsel representing respondent-11.

¶6

Ram Ashish Verma And 2 Others, the writ petitioners have approached this by filing present writ petition as PIL praying following relief:

¶7

"(a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus diecting the respondents no. 2 to 4 to remove the illegal encroachment of respondent nos 5 to 10 of Aaraji No. 260 Area-0320 Hectare of Pond (Public Utility Land). .

¶8

(b) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction winch this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶9

(c) Award the cost to the petitioner from the respondents."

¶10

Present writ petition came up for admission on 28.01.2021and this Court passed the following order:-

¶11

" At present, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajitabh Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 10, it is not clear, if there is legal impediment in proceeding on the allegations

¶12

made against the private respondents who alleged to have made encroachments over public utility land being Arazi No. 260 area 0.320 hectare, situated at Village Kotha Galib Patti@Bhaupur, Pargana Sikandapur Garvi, Tehsil Belthara Road, District Ballia.

¶13

Respondent counsel may obtain instructions as to the correct facts at present.

¶14

Put up as fresh on 18.02.2021 showing the name of Sri R.P. Shukla as counsel for the Gaon Sahba.

¶15

Let a copy of this petition be served on Sri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the Gaon Sahba."

¶16

On the Matter being taken, learned counsel for petitioners submits that he has received counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10. However, there is nothing on record to show that in compliance of above order dated 28.01.2021 notice of this writ petition has been served upon Mr. R. P. Shukla Advocate, who represents Gaon Sabha.

¶17

At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present writ petition. He submits that remedy of petitioner lies by moving an application before competent authority under U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 for initiating proceeding against respondents 5 to 10 in terms of section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006

¶18

When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner could not over come the same.

¶19

Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1,2,3 and 4 and learned counsel representing respondents 5 to 10 and upon

¶20

perusal of record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this present writ petition pending.

¶21

Accordingly, this writ petition filed as PIL is disposed of finally by directing petitioner to move a representation before competent authority for redressal of their grievances as prayed for in present writ petition in terms of Section 67 of U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006. In case such a representation is filed before competent authority, he shall proceed to decide the same for the limited purpose as to whether proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are required to be initiated or not within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order which shall be filed by petitioner before competent authority by means of a notary affidavit.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.7.2021 YK

Ram Ashish Verma and 2 Others v. State of U P and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ashish Verma and 2 Others v. State of U P and 9 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

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ramakant Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Ram Ishwar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Bade Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dildar Husain Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others