Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2023WPIL/1614/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a village headman, filed a PIL regarding plot 253/539 recorded as a pond. The State obtained an instruction confirming inspection found no encroachment and that the petitioner's husband, who was present, signed documents. The Court held the petition was misconceived.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with observation that petitioner must follow Section 72 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Sangeeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198921

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1614 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sangeeta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

1.In compliance of the order of this Court dated 27.09.2023 instruction dated 12.10.2023 has been placed before this Court by Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents which is taken on record.

¶7

2.Mr. R. C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents on the basis of instruction dated 12.10.2023, submitted that plot No.253/539 area 0.0870 hectare is recorded as pond in clause-6 of the revenue record. He further submitted that revenue team was constituted and inspection was conducted in respect to the plot No.253/539 and it has been found that there is no encroachment over the pond in question. He further submitted that petitioner is sitting Pradhan of the village in question and husband of the petitioner namely Ajay Kumar Bhartiya was present when the inspection was conducted. He further submitted that husband of the petitioner was satisfied and signed the documents prepared by the authorities. He further submitted that there is no encroachment over the pond land, as such the instant P.I.L.

¶8

which has been filed by the petitioner being, sitting pradhan is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with cost against the petitioner. He further submitted that petition has been filed by the pradhan in the personal capacity through private counsel, which is violation of the provisions contained under Section 72 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶9

I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

There is no dispute about the fact that plot in question is recorded as pond.

¶11

The instruction send by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karchhana, Prayagraj will be relevant, which is as follows:

¶12

" ममनननयउचचनयमयमलयइलमहमबमदममययजजतजनहहतयमहचकमससखयम 1614/2023 ससगनतमददवनबनममसटदटऑफयय०पन०व 4 अनयममइनसटटकशनदमजखलकरमयदजमनदकद समबनधमममम०नयमयमलयदमरमपमररतआददशहदनमसक 27.09.2023 कदअननपमलनमम इ स टटकशनदमजखलहकयदजमनदहदतनआखयमहनमनवततह ह -

¶13

यमचनदमरममम०नयमयमलयममउपरयकजनहहतयमहचकमससखयम 1614/2023 ममपमररत हदनमसक 27/09/2023 कयहनमनआददशपमररतहकयमगयमथम।

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the staterespondents and Mr.Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha.

¶15

2. In view of the prayer made in the writ petition, instruction is required from the State.

¶16

3 Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is directed to obtain instruction in the matter within two weeks.

¶17

4. Put up this case as fresh on 13.10.2023.

¶18

उपरयककदसमबनधममसमदरअवगतकरमनमहहहकगमम- ककजधयमरम, परगनम- अरहल, तहसनल- करछनम, जनपद- पयमगरमजकदगमटमससखयम- 253/539 रकबम- 0.0870 हद० तमलमबकदखमतदममशदणन-6(1)दजरहह।जजसककजमसचरमजसवटनमदमरमककगई।सथलनयजमसच ममपमयमगयमहकगमटमससखयम-253/539 रकबम 0.0870 हद०अहभलदखनयखततननशदणन6(1) तमलमबकदखमतमससखयम- 330 ममअहभलदखखततननममअसहकतहह।तमलमबमतकदपर

¶19

खमलनहहतथमजलसदआचछमहदतहह।हकसनपकमरकमअहतकमणनहहहह।जमसचकदसमय यमहचकमकतरससगनतमददवनकदपहतअजयकनममरभमरतनयमउपससथतथद, जयउककमयरवमहनसद ससतनषथदतथमकमयरववजतपरअपनमहसतमकरबनमयदहह।कमयरववजतककछमयमपहतससलगहह।

¶20

अतहमम०नयमयमलयसदपमथरनमहहहकजनहहतयमहचकमससखयम- 1614/2023 हनरसतकरनद कककवपमकरम।

¶21

ह०अप० ( रमजदशकनममरशनवमसतव ) उपजजलमजधकमरन , करछनम , पयमगरमज। "

¶22

In view of the fact mentioned in the instruction as well as proceeding annexed along with instruction, no interference is required in the matter.

¶23

Writ petition is dismissed with observation that petitioner should follow procedure as prescribed under Section 72 of U .P. Revenue Code, 2006 before initiating any legal proceeding.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.10.2023 PS*

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta 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 Naushey Vs State of U.P.

Madarasa Zamiatul Fallah Bilariaganj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Omkar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Indal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lalit Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Ashok Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others