Disposed

Sidhnath Pathak v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2023WPIL/1078/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court disposed of a PIL regarding encroachment over 'Bhita' land in Jaunpur. The court directed Respondent No.2 to decide a pending revenue case (Case No.T202214360303431) within six months, while clarifying it did not adjudicate merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to hear and decide Case No.T202214360303431 expeditiously within six months.

Sidhnath Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:97614

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1078 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sidhnath Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sabhapati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶7

In view of the order proposed, notice to private Respondent No.4 is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the complaint of the villagers regarding encroachment over the Bhita situated in Village Sahani, Pargana Mungara, Tehsil Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur, proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, were instituted and the case was numbered as Case No.T202214360303431 (Report Lekhpal vs. Babban) on 25.6.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after registration of the aforementioned case notice was issued to private Respondent No.4, but till date neither he has filed any objection nor the case has been decided.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that due to the aforesaid encroachments over the Bhita the villagers are facing acute difficulties.

¶10

I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

I find that Case No.T202214360303431 (Report Lekhpal vs. Babban) is pending before Respondent No.2 since 25.6.2022 and has not been decided till date.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is finally disposed of with direction to Respondent No.2 to hear and decide Case No.T202214360303431 (Report Lekhpal vs. Babban) expeditiously, preferably within a period six months from the date of the production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated over the

¶14

merits of the case.

¶15

Needless to say that Respondent No.2, while deciding the aforesaid case, will not grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Salim

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sidhnath Pathak v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhnath Pathak v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Sant Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Ram Lal Pal Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Deepa Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishnawati Devi and 3 Others Vs Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division and 2 Others

Neelam Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajnath Ram Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others