Dismissed

Purushottam Das Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2021WPIL/77/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, residents of the village concerned, filed a writ petition seeking relief regarding unacquired land. The court dismissed the petition because the petitioners were personally interested and it was not genuinely a public interest litigaiton lacking the required statutory statement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on grounds of lack of public standing and non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Purushottam Das Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 77 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Purushottam Das Gupta And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh Paliwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

¶6

"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Collector to decide the petitioner's representation dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure No. 11) to this Writ Petition.

¶7

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that during pendency of this Writ Petition the authorized construction over the un-acquired land of plot no. 315 area 24.9170 apparant from Annexure No. 3 of the Khatauni may be stopped."

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of a notification of 1969, an area of 9.168 hectares were taken from plot no. 315 pertaining to Village Kaila, Pargana Loni, District Meerut in favour of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Thereafter, the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad acquired some other part of the aforesaid plot no. 315 for development. It is alleged that the possession was then taken on 23.11.2006. The contention is that a total area of 24.9170 hectares was not acquired from the aforesaid plot no. 315 and it is recorded at present as 'banjar'. It is contended that the unacquired land of plot no. 315 is required to be returned to the tenure holders of Village Kaila in view of the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

¶9

During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are personally interested in the matter as they are the residents of the same village. Thus the petitioners are not entitled to maintain this petition as it does not appear to be filed in public interest.

¶10

Further, a perusal of the petition reveals that the statement as required to be made by the petitioners under Clause (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has not been made.

¶11

The writ petiton is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 3.2.2021 A. V. Singh

¶13

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)

Purushottam Das Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Das Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Mahendra Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajnath Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Coral Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Akhtar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others