Disposed

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

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2021WPIL/230/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning encroachment over revenue land, the Hon'ble Court held that the appropriate remedy lies in moving a representation before the competent authority under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, thus disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file a representation before Respondent 4 (Tehsildar) under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006; ordered Respondent 4 to decide within three months; writ petition disposed of.

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 230 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Dwivedi,Chandrahas Singh Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Chandrahas Singh Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing respondent 5 who are available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 is also available.

¶6

Rakesh Kumar Singh, the writ petitioner has filed present writ petition as (P.I.L.) for following reliefs:-

¶7

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to 5 to remove the encorachment over the land Gata No. 542 area 0.3379 hectare (recorded as Pokhari) and Gatas of Khasta No. 354 (recorded as Baha) situate at VillageNasirpur Pargana and Tehsil Saidpur, District Ghazipur which is recorded as Pokhari and Baha respectively in the revenue record for the purpose of public interest.

¶8

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2/3 to decide the representation dated 14.12.2020 filed by petitioner (Annexure No. 6 to this writ petition).

¶9

(c) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶10

(iv) To award the cost of writ petition.

¶11

At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 specifically provides for removal of encroachment upon gaon sabha land. He, further, contends that aforesaid proceedings can be initiated on the information made by many person. He, therefore, contends that remedy lies to petitioner by moving a representation before competent

¶12

authority i.e. respondent 4 Tehsildar, Tehsil Saidpur, District Ghazipur in terms of section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

¶13

When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for parties, I am of the view that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition (P.I.L.) pending.

¶15

In view of above, this writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is disposed of finally by directing petitioner to move a representation before respondent 4 Tehsildar, Tehsil Saidpur, District Ghazipur for ventilation of his grievance as raised in the present writ petition in terms of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006. In case, such a representation is filed before respondent 4 Tehsildar, Tehsil Saidpur, District Ghazipur, he shall proceed to decide whether proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 are required to be initiated regarding land in dispute or not. Such a decision shall be taken by respondent 4 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by the petitioner before respondent 4 by means of a notary affidavit.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.7.2021 HSM

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Singh 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

Ram Adhar Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Manveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Sentu Kumar Vs Board O Revenue and 12 Others

Ramakant Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Shyama Prasad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others