The petitioner, not being a party to the prior eviction proceedings decided vide order dated 16.8.2018 in Gram Sabha Khadlana Vs. Dipankar, was held not maintainable. The writ court cannot function as an executing court.
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 7
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 560 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Jagdish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Jagdish, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel representing respondent 5 Gaon Sabha, who are available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 is also available.
Ram Kumar, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition as P.I.L. claiming following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to taken necessary action against unauthorized occupants i.e. respondent no. 6 and to initiate appropriate proceedings for removal of illegal encroachment so made by him over the land of Khasra No. 400 Area 0.0130 as well as Khasra No. 401 Area 0.0150 hect. situated in village Khandlana, Pargana Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur which is recorded as "Playground" in the revenue record.
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to remove the illegal encroachment so made by the respondent no. 6 over Gaon Sabha land within certain stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award costs of the petition to this petitioner.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of encroachment made by respondent 6 Dipankar over gaon sabha land i.e. Survey Plot No. 400 area 0.0130 hectares as well as Survey Plot No. 401 area 0.0150 hectares which are recorded as
Play ground came to be decided, vide order dated 16.8.2018. Copy of same is on record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
On the aforesaid, learned Standing Counsel contends that proceedings required under law for eviction of respondent 6 from Gaon Sabha land has already been initiated and decided. Petitioner who is not a party in Case No. 01724 of 2018 (Gram Sabha Khadlana Vs. Dipankar), wherein order dated 16.8.2018 has been passed cannot maintain the present writ petition. A writ Court cannot be converted into an Executing Court.
When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.
In view of above, present writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2021 HSM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed by a non-party to existing eviction proceedings is maintainable.
Whether a writ Court can be converted into an executing court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gram Sabha Khadlana Vs. DipankarReferred¶11
Case No. 01724 of 2018 (Gram Sabha Khadlana Vs. Dipankar)
Ram Kumar
State Of U.P.
Gaon Sabha
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
