The single judge of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh dismissed a writ petition seeking eviction of encroachment on public utility land. The court held the petition was not maintainable, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Code.
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. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5618 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shri Ram And 15 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 4 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel representing respondent-6.
Perused the record.
Petitioner has filed present writ petition for following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 to evict and dispossess the respondent no.5 demolish the construction and to remove the encroachment and blockage vacating the plot no.458/0.0130 Hectare and plot no. 460/0.0380 Hectare (Garha) of the Village- Kohat Tiwari, Gram Panchayat- Kohal Tiwari, Tappa- Ramgarh, Pargana- Amodha, TehsilHarraiya, District- Basti.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 to demarcate the land, i.e., plots no. 458/0.0130 and 460/0.0380.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 to take action against the respondent no.5 in accordance with law.
(d) Issue 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.
(e) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioners."
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in case petitioner is aggrieved by the constructions/encroachment made on plots no. 458 and 460 which is recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha/Public Utility Land, then remedy of petitioner lies to approach the appropriate authority in terms of Section 67 or Section 24 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. He, therefore, submits that present writ petition is not maintainable.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner
could not overcome the same.
In view of above, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Saif
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed for eviction of encroachments on public utility land is maintainable before the high court.
Whether the remedy of a petition seeking remedy for encroachment lies under Section 67 or Section 24 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Ram And 15 Others
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
