Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2021WPIL/899/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding encroachment on public land, the Court held that the petitioner should approach the competent authority (Tehsildar) under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, instead of pursuing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Tehsildar, Tekshal Machhlishahar, under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, to file a representation regarding encroachment.

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 899 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Case called out in revised list.

¶6

Mr. B.K. Verma, learned counsel for petitioner is not available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 3 is available.

¶7

Petitioner has filed present writ petition as PIL claiming following relief:-

¶8

"(a) issue a writ (P.I.L.) order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 and 3 to the consider grievance of the petitioner and decide the representation dated 23.01.2021, 02.02.2021, 16.02.2021, 08.02.2021, 25.01.2021 within stipulated period.

¶9

(b) issue any other writ (P.I.L.) order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 and 3 to remove the illegal encroachment and possession on over the public utility land Khalihan, Arazi No.357 area 0.0480 hectare, Bhita Arazi No.348 area 0.5350 hectare, and Chakmarg Arazi No.352 area 0.0520 Hectare, situated in Village/Post- Batnahit, Pargana- Ghisuwa, Tehsil- Machhlishahar, District- Jaunpur within stipulated period.

¶10

(c) issue any order direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in present circumstances of the case.

¶11

(d) Award the cost of the writ petition (P.I.L.) to the petitioner."

¶12

At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that remedy of petitioner is to approach competent authority, i.e., respondent-3, Tehsildar Tehsil- Machhlishahar, District- Jaunpur in terms of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶13

Having perused the writ petition, the Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶14

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of finally by directing petitioner to approach competent authority, i.e., respondent-3, Tehsildar Tehsil- Machhlishahar, District-

¶15

Jaunpur by means of a representation in terms of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶16

In case, such a representation is filed competent authority shall proceed to decide the same for the limited purpose whether proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are required to be undertaken or not, 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 petitioner before respondent-3 by means of a notary affidavit.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.7.2021 Saif

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Fariyad Vs State of U.P.

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

Krishna Kumar Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Umesh Chandra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Birbal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue and 7 Others