Dismissed

Mohammad Kaleem v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2022WPIL/237/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a PIL filed by Mohammad Kaleem seeking removal of obstructions from a public pond. The court held the petition premature due to the existence of an earlier suit filed by the petitioner against the Respondent Sub Divisional Magistrate. The suit was directed to be decided expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

PIL dismissed; Respondent Sub Divisional Magistrate directed to decide the pending suit expeditiously.

Mohammad Kaleem Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 237 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Kaleem Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammed Iftekhar,Mohammad Hisham Qadeer Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) with the prayer to direct the State Authorities to take action to remove the obstructions raised by the private respondents over putlic pond consisting of plot Nos.529 and 534 Old Nos.246, 247 and 544/1 situated in Village Soraon Qasba dn Tehsil Soraon District Prayagraj recorded as Talab in Khasra of 1259 fasli and restore the same in its original shape.

¶7

Today when the matter is taken up, it is pointed out by learned Standing Counsel that for the relief sought in the present P.I.L., the petitioner has already been filed a suit before the Court of respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, Prayagraj, copy of which is appended as Annexure No.5 to the P.I.L.

¶8

It reveals from perusal of the same that the suit was filed on 30.11.2021 along with the application for grant of interim relief but the petitioner without waiting considerable time, immediately filed the present P.I.L on 06.01.2022.

¶9

Sub Section 6 of Section 67 of Code Rules, 2016 provided that the Assistant Collector shall make an endevour to conclude the proceedings initiated under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice. It is argued that the present P.I.L. has been totally pre-mature. The aforesaid Rule is quoted below:-

¶10

" (6) The Assistant Collector shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceeding under section 67 of the Code within the period of ninety days from the date of

¶11

issuance of the show cause notice and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reasons for the same shall be recorded."

¶12

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present P.I.L. is pre-mature and liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Accordingly, the present P.I.L. is dismissed.

¶14

Since the petitioner made the suit was filed before respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, Prayagraj, on 30.11.2021, the respondent No.3 is directed to decide the same expeditiously strictly in accordance with law as per provisions contained in U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if there is no legal impediment and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.3.2022 saqlain

¶16

Digitally signed by SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER Date: 2022.03.11 11:36:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Kaleem v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Kaleem v. State of U.P. and 11 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

Arjun Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Subash Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs the Commissioner Bareilly Division and 4 Others

Amrit Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Narayan Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others