Disposed

Dinanath Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2021WPIL/1961/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL No. 1961 of 2020, the court disposed of the public interest petition seeking removal of encroachments over public land. The petition was dismissed, directing the petitioner to approach the Tehsildar under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and mandating due process before removal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Tehsildar under Section 26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; removal of encroachment to be completed within two months.

Dinanath Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1961 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Dinanath Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Shrama Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Shrama, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Land Management Committee/Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The petitioner, invoking the jurisdiction of the Court in public interest, seeks the removal of the illegal encroachment over Arazi No. 63 area 0.0040 hectare recorded as chakmarg, Arazi No. 59 area 0.0150 hectare and Arazi No. 80 area 0.0760 hectare recorded as Nali in the revenue record, Pargana Shadiyabad, Tehsil Jakhaniya District Ghazipur.

¶7

Section 26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that if the Tehsildar finds that any obstacle has been created, which impedes the free use of a public road, path or common land of a village, he may direct removal of such obstacle and may even use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. The said provision is quoted herein below:-

¶8

"26.Removal of obstacle. - If the Tahsildar finds that any obstacle impedes the free use of a public road, path or common land of a village or obstructs the road or water course or source of water, he may direct the removal of such obstacle and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may recover the cost of such removal from the person concerned in the manner prescribed".

¶9

As per Section 26, the Tehsildar is empowered to recover the cost of such removal of obstacle from the concerned person.

¶10

In view of above, this petition is disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tehsildar by moving application under Section 26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. If any such application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be decided and appropriate action shall be taken by the Tehsildar. It is further directed that if any one is found to have created any impediment or obstacle in the public path, the same shall be removed. It is also directed that before passing an order of removal/encroachment, the persons who are said to have encroached the public path shall be given an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The entire exercise under this order

¶11

shall be conducted and completed and the encroachment if found shall be removed by the Tehsildar within a period of two months from the date application by the petitioner is moved along with a computerized copy of this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.1.2021 S.K.

Dinanath Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinanath Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 11 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

Bhagwan Pandey and Another Vs Civil Judge and Another

Smt Preeti Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajan Singh Alias Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Bhargava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Pooja Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others