Dismissed

Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2022WPIL/441/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged unauthorized occupation of public land by the Respondent Gram Sabha. The High Court held the petition non-maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 67 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation challenging the unauthorized occupation of public utility land by the Respondent Gram Sabha was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the existence of a specific statutor

Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 7… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 441 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/Gram Sabha.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present Public Interest Litigation with the following prayer:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to remove the unauthorized occupation made by the respondent - no. 6 to @ over public utility land Gata No. 130, area 0.0850 hectare situated at Village Gohali Basant, Post Bhatouli Bazar, Police Station Basgaon, Tehsil Khajani, District Gorakhpur."

¶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 a complete procedure has been prescribed under Section 67 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of unauthorized possession/encroachment and the petitioner must have been avail the aforesaid alternative 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 Section 6 of Section 67 of Code Rules, 2016

¶11

Since the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy for redressal of his

¶12

grievances and he should avail the same instead of approaching this Court In this view of the matter, the present P.I.L. is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶13

In case, the petitioner initiates the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code before the concerned authority within a period of three weeks from today, 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.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.3.2022 saqlain

¶15

Digitally signed by SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER Date: 2022.03.31 09:37:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Raja Ram Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mithai Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Chandrika Sahni Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Babu Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Divakar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kr. Poonam Srivastava Siddhartha Vs Mohit Agrawal Deputy I.G. of Police Estb. and Anr.