Disposed

Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2023WPIL/2523/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court directed the State authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 manually if the computer portal fails to list the village, preventing action against public encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Directing the State to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 manually if the village is missing from the computer system due to public encroachment.

Kailash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:222535

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2523 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Kailash Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Surendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Sri Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents.

¶7

On previous occasion instructions have been called with regard to alleged encroachment as demonstrated through the instant petition and the action taken by the Responding Authorities for removal of the same.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel came up with the instructions, through which it has been transpired that although it is admitted by State respondents that the encroachment is there, but proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has not been initiated since the village is not available in the computer portal and as such the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code has not been registered through computer portal.

¶9

The reasons for not registering the case is highly vague and non sustainable.

¶10

Learned Standing counsel appearing for the State respondents is hereby requested to advice the competent authority to proceed

¶11

manually if the village has not been notified/mentioned in the computer system, the property belongs to public utility cannot be put into dependent over the computer fault whatsoever has been made either by any agency or by any specific person.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel assure that he will communicate this order to the Competent Authority and if there is encroachment carried out by some persons who are not legally authorized for the same, the case under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 may be registered and the manual numbers may be allocated to the same.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.11.2023

¶15

A. Tripathi

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Shobh Nath Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Shri Prakash Triwari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ramsudisht Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Smt. Bilkis Begum Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deep Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 16 Others