Disposed

Raveesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023WPIL/2389/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, petitioner sought direction to restrain private respondents from encroaching on a pond and to execute Nagar Panchayat orders. The Court held that pending proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code precluded further direction but directed the Tehsildar to decide the pending matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Argument for separate restraining order refused; direction given to Tehsildar to decide pending proceedings under Section 67(1) of Code-2006 within six months.

Raveesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2389 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Raveesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Nipun Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Shyam Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.8.

¶6

The instant public interest litigation has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent nos.1 to 5 restraining the respondents no.6 to 10 (private respondents) from making any encroachment or construction over the pond in dispute.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain applications have been moved before the concerned authorities of Nagar Panchayat Nidhauli Kala, Etah and notices have also been issued but the orders of the Nagar Panchayat have not been executed. He further prayed that a direction may be issued for implementation/execution of the orders of the Nagar Panchayat.

¶8

At the very outset, Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.8 has drawn attention of the Court to 'paragraph No.9' of the writ petition wherein it is mentioned that Tehsildar (Judicial) Etah has registered certain cases against respondent Nos.6 to 10 under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code-2006') and notices have also been issued to them but the proceeding could not be finalized. He further submits that in view of the pendency of the proceeding under Section 67(1) of the Code-2006, no separate direction can be issued.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the proceedings under Section 67(1) of the Code are still pending before the authorities concerned, it would not be proper to issue any other order or direction, therefore, the relief claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby refused.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Tehsildar concerned is directed to decide the proceedings under Section 67(1) of the Code-2006, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶11

The public interest litigation is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Jyotsana

¶13

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raveesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 9 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

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dayashankar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others