The petitioner challenged encroachment over a pond and road. The court observed that alternative remedies exist under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, specifically Section 67 for plot encroachment and Sections 25/26 for road encroachment. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without granting further relief.
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 :- WRIT - C No. - 8746 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rajendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar Dwivedi,Saurabh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the encroachment over a certain pond and over a road. It has further been submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had taken cognizance of the matter on 19.11.2019 and 20.07.2020 but no action had been taken thereon.
Be that as it may, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the encroachment over Plot No.255-B, he may take recourse to the provisions of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the encroachment over the road, he may take recourse to the provisions of Sections 25/26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Siddhant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding encroachment can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to resort to alternative statutory remedies.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Yadav
State Of U.P.
Siddhartha Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
