Dismissed

Mohd. Rizwan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2022/603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL seeking directions for removal of encroachment on gaon sabha land, holding that the petitioner failed to invoke the specific statutory mechanism under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is the appropriate remedy. The court observed the duty of the local authority to ensure removal of illegal occupation.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition as the petitioner failed to invoke the statutory remedy under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Mohd. Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 603 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Rizwan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Social Welfare Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar,Srees Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Pranav Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Land Management Committee concerned and Sri Pranav Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

¶7

This petition purportedly filed in public interest makes a prayer for issuing a direction to the authority concerned, namely, District Magistrate, Unnao to decide the representation said to have been made by the petitioner on 22.04.2022.

¶8

By the said representation, a complaint appears to have been made by the petitioner before the District Magistrate stating therein that the land comprised in gata no.903, having an area of 0.202 hectare which is a gaon sabha land and is now within the limits of Nagar Panchayat concerned, is a talab land which has been encroached by respondent no.5 and accordingly appropriate direction may be issued to reclaim the said land.

¶9

Provisions contained in Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provide a statutory mechanism for removal of encroachment over the land belonging to gram panchayat or any local authority. According to the said provision, in case any such encroachment is found or gaon sabha land is found to have been damaged or misappropriated or wrongly occupied, the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or the local authority concerned or the Lekhpal concerned is under a duty to inform the Assistant Collector of such misuse/illegal encroachment.

¶10

Sub-section (2) of Section 67 provides that on information received by the Assistant Collector as per the provision contained in sub-section (1) of Section 67 or even otherwise, if he is satisfied that the property has been damaged or misappropriated or any person has illegally been in occupation,

¶11

he shall take appropriate steps not only for eviction of such a person from such land but also charging damages.

¶12

The occurrence of word "otherwise" in sub-section (2) makes it clear that it is not only that the Assistant Collector shall act and exercise its authority and power on the information received from the gram panchayat or the local authority or the Lekhpal but even otherwise anyone can invoke the provisions of Section 67 for removal of such an encroachment on gaon sabha land.

¶13

In the instant case, the petitioner without invoking the provisions of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code has approached this Court which can not be appreciated.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶15

However, notwithstanding dismissal of this petition, it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy including the remedy available under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶16

Though we have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it could not have been entertained at the instance of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has not invoked the remedy available under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, however, in the same breath, we may also observe that in case any gaon sabha land is illegally encroached, it is the duty of gram panchayat or the local authority concerned to ensure that such illegal occupation is removed.

¶17

Accordingly, we require the learned Standing Counsel to apprise the Sub-Divisional Officer/Tehsildar concerned of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.9.2022 Renu/-

¶19

Digitally signed by RENU AGARWAL Date: 2022.09.13 10:21:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Rizwan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rizwan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko. and 4 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

Kishori Sharan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Ram Lal and Another Vs State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lko. and Others

Abdul Wahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare Lko. and Others