Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2021WPIL/132/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a PIL seeking restoration and reconstruction of a public well in District-Jaunpur. The Court found that the petitioner's name was recorded in land records as a tenure holder, negating the claim that the land was public property. Consequently, no public interest case existed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that no public interest case was established in view of the petitioner's existing land rights.

Bade Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 132 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Bade Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

1.Heard Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, who is available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 is also available.

¶6

Bade Lal, the writ petitioner has filed present writ petition as PIL praying following relief:-

¶7

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authority to restore and reconstruct the public well over Khasra Nos. 737 area 0.1700 hectares of the Rrevenue Village-Bijayugir (Bhangeri), Gehsil-Madiyahun, District-Jaunpur.

¶8

(ii) Issue any other writ order or direction as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper inthe facts and circumstances of the case.

¶9

(iii) Award cost of this petition to the petitioner."

¶10

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

¶11

"Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha is present.

¶12

Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to obtain instructions as to why consequential action has not been taken or the communication dated 6.5.2019 issued by the Block Development Officer, Jaunpur (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).

¶13

Put up as fresh on 18.02.2021."

¶14

4.Learned Standing Counsel contends that in compliance of order dated 28.01.2021, requisite instructions have not been received by him.

¶15

Record shows that in the Khatauni of 1428-1433 Fasli name of Bade Lal/ Ram Prasad are recorded as Bhumidhars with transferable rights. There is nothing on record to show that land in dispute in Survey Plot No. 737 does not part of holding of the tenure holders, namely, Bade Lal/Ram Prasad.

¶16

In view of above, no case for public interest can be said to be in existence regarding survey plot no. 737. Accordingly present writ petition (PIL) is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.7.2021 YK

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bade Lal v. State of U.P. and 6 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

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 Ashish Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 9 Others

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

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