Disposed

Bhola v. State of U P and 8 Others

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022WRIC/15066/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner approached the High Court for mandamus to remove encroachment on reserved land. The Court found the petitioner already removed encroachments and that Section 460 of U.P. Revenue Manual is the statutory remedy for execution, accordingly disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to seek execution under Section 460 of U.P. Revenue Manual.

Bhola Vs State of U P and 8 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15066 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhola Respondent :- State Of U P And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Awtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.9.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to comply the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by respondent no. 4 in case no. 3647/15 (computer case no. T20151551013647)(Report Vs. Gujeshwar ) under proceeding 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act by removing the encroachment over Arazi no. 426(2) Mi. area 0.2020 hectare recorded as "Reserve for Ambedkar Park" in revenue record encroached by Private respondents situated in village Mahuar Basgitiya Pargana Ghosi, Tehsil Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau."

¶8

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, instructions dated 02.08.2022 received from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Mau placed before the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶9

It is stated in the aforesaid instructions that insofar as the order passed against the petitioner is concerned, he has already removed his encroachments over the land in dispute.

¶10

Insofar the prayer made in the present petition is concerned, i.e., for implementation of the order 7.12.2017 passed by respondent no. 4 in case no. 3647/15 (computer case no. T20151551013647)(Report Vs. Gujeshwar ), for execution of the order, the remedy is available under Section 460 of under U.P. Revenue Manual.

¶11

Since the remedy is available, therefore, no reason exists as to why the remedy aforesaid has not been taken if the order is not being executed, though we find letters on record to seek execution of the order. However, it cannot be said to be as per Section 460 of the Manual.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take remedy under Section 460 of U.P. Revenue Manual for execution of the order.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.8.2022 saqlain

¶14

Digitally signed by SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER Date: 2022.08.11 15:01:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhola v. State of U P and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola v. State of U P and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haneef Vs Pawan Kumar S.P. Shamli and Another

Karimullah Khan Vs Mohd. Akmal Akhtar A.D.M. Amroha and 3 Others

Swaminath Pal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rihan Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Soran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others