Dismissed

Rohit and 10 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023WPIL/1839/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, in a Public Interest Litigation regarding alleged illegal encroachment on Scheduled Caste land for a Shamshan Ghat, dismissed the petition. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish credentials as required under court rules and that the PIL forum should not be used for personal disputes.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's relief seeking removal of encroachment was dismissed.

Rohit and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209200

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1839 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rohit And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no.1, 2 & 3. Notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani.

¶7

The present petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, seeking for following reliefs:

¶8

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 & 3 to remove the illegal encroachment over the land of Araji No.00701 having an area 1.3970 of Shamshan Ghat which is belonging to Scheduled Caste Category of the village.

¶9

(ii) .............................

¶10

(iii) ............................."

¶11

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and is a social worker. He is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the authorities to remove the alleged illegal encroachment over the land of Arazi No.00701 having area of 1.3970 hectare belonging to the Shamshan Ghat . He has made an allegation in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the present Gram Pradhan in collusion with the respondent authorities is illegally trying to construct the water tank on the aforesaid land.

¶12

Opposing the objection, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has contended that in the entire memo of the writ petition, the petitioner did not have made any averment explaining the credentials as required under Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952), which has been amended in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal & others ; reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bhoopendra Singh versus State of U.P. and others; reported in 2023(9) ADJ 685.

¶13

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further contended that there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations that have been made by the petitioner in paragraphs No.7 & 10 of the writ petition. His submission is that the writ petition appears to be an outcome of some personal differences between the petitioner and the present Gram Pradhan, who has not been impleaded as respondent in his personal capacity, as such the present writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

¶14

From the perusal of the record, this Court finds no substance in the contentions and allegations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The forum of Public Interest Litigation cannot be allowed to be made a political platform.

¶15

Taking into consideration the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the legal as well as the factual matrix of the case, this Court finds that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 31.10.2023/Abhishek Gupta

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit and 10 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit and 10 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Singh Vs District Magistrate / Collector and 11 Others

Sri Nivas Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Raisa Begum Vs Board of Revenue and 6 Others

Smt Shamsun Nisha Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and 11 Others

Smt.Tarawati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other

Nripendra Shah Vs Board of Revenue Allahabad and 6 Others