Disposed

Lallan Prasad Yadav v. the State of U.P. and 17 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022WPIL/1404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a PIL seeking demolition of encroachments on public utility land. Court declined to adjudicate merits as revenue proceedings under Section 122B were already initiated. Directs concerned Officer to dispose of registered cases expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to decide four registered cases on merits after hearing parties within six months.

Lallan Prasad Yadav Vs the State of U.P. and 17 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1404 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Lallan Prasad Yadav Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey,Shailendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.5-Land Management Committee.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶7

"1. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent concerned to demolish the permanent construction raised by the private respondents over the part of Arazi No.296 area 0.2500 hectare, situated at Village-Sarawa, Pargana and Post- Mahul, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh which is entered as a 'Navin Parti' in the revenue records/Khatauni in the interest of the public at large.

¶8

2. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to dispossess the private respondents from the portion of the public utility land i.e. from Navin Parti Arazi No.296, area 0.2500 hectare situated at Village-Sarawa, Pargana and Post- Mahul, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh to meet the end of justice.

¶9

3. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶10

4. Issue the award cost for this petition to the petitioner."

¶11

This Court vide order dated 6.8.2022 directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter. Instruction has been produced before this Court.

¶12

In the instruction, it is submitted that in respect to Plot No.296 area 0.2500 Hectare, which is recorded as Navin Parti in the revenue records proceeding under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has been initiated against the persons who have encroached the Plot No.296 and the following four cases have been registered in the Court of Tahsildar, Tahsil- Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh i.e. respondent no.4. The reference of the four cases are as follows:

¶13

"1. T201315060300004

¶14

2. T20141506031204

¶15

3. T20131506033471

¶16

4. T202215060303110"

¶17

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, since the proceeding under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act has already been initiated in respect to the Plot No.296, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4 i.e. Tahsildar, Tahsil- Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh to decide the aforementioned four cases on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.9.2022 Rameez

¶20

Digitally signed by RAMEEZ AHMED Date: 2022.09.16 16:57:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lallan Prasad Yadav v. the State of U.P. and 17 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallan Prasad Yadav v. the State of U.P. and 17 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

Bechu and 4 Others Vs Board of Revenue and 12 Others

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

Shiv Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dev Sharma and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 9 Others