Disposed

Bechani Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2022WPIL/405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged encroachment on agricultural land. The court held the petition not maintainable as an alternative remedy existed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code. With parties' consent, the petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to avail this statutory remedy within three weeks and directing the authority to conclude proceedings within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

The PIL was disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; the authority was directed to conclude proceedings within 90 days.

Bechani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 405 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Bechani Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Yadav,Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) with the following prayer:-

¶7

"(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 take appropriate action to remove the encroachment and obstacle from the Chak Marg of the araji no. 126, area 0.0120 hectare situated at village Mahagown, Paragana Mahuari, Tahsil Sakaldiha, District Chandaull."

¶8

Today when the matter is taken up, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the present P.I.L. is not maintainable as the alternative remedy has been available to the petitioner to initiate the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code before the competent authority and the petitioner must have been avail the aforesaid alternative statutory remedy. It is argued by learned counsel for respondent that Sub Rule 6 of Rule 67 of Code Rules, 2016 provided that the authority concerned 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. The aforesaid Rule is quoted below:-

¶9

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

¶10

He further argued that if the petitioner will avail the aforesaid remedy, the concerned authority will decide the same within time as provided Sub Rule 6 of Rule 67 of Code Rules, 2016.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this P.I.L. is disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy as provided under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of three weeks from today. If such a proceeding is initiated, the concerned competent authority is directed to conclude the proceeding within the time limit as provided Sub Rule 6 of Rule 67 of Code Rules, 2016 after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.3.2022 saqlain

¶14

Digitally signed by SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER Date: 2022.03.24 09:39:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bechani Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bechani Devi v. State of U.P. 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

Mohd. Rahis Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mewa Lal Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Shravan Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kiran Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ganesh Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Vindu Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others