Dismissed

Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2023WPIL/264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding alleged encroachment on land recorded as a pond, the court examined revenue records showing conflicting ownership statuses. The court ruled that since the land is not village land, it cannot presume encroachment. The petitioners are directed to pursue corrections under the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 and Consolidation Act.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioners advised to adopt recourse under U.P. Revenue Code-2006 for alleged erroneous entries.

Ganga Prasad Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 264 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Ganga Prasad Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girja Shanker Mishra,Girja Shanker Mishra,Vinayak Varma

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Instructions supplied by learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Vinayak Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

This public interest litigation petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents be directed to remove illegal encroachments made by the private respondents from Gata No.505/12 (new No.2), area 2 Bigha, 19 Biswa 15 Dhoor 0.0760 Hectares mentioned as "pond" in the revenue record situated at Village-Kuvari, Pargana-Jahoorabad, Tehsil-Mohammadabad, District-Ghazipur..

¶9

This Court while entertaining the instant PIL on 07.02.2023 passed the following order:-

¶10

"Heard Sri G.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 and perused the record.

¶11

It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is resident of Village Kuvari, Pargana Jahoorabad, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur. The private respondents no. 6 to 10 are also resident of the same village. They have illegally encroached over Gata No. 505/12 (new no. 2), area 2 bigha, 19 biswa, 15 dhoor, which is recorded as pond in the revenue record. It is further submitted that despite repeated representations and applications moved by the petitioner as well as other villagers, no action has been taken to remove the unauthorized encroachment of respondents no. 6 to 10.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instructions.

¶13

Put up as fresh on 24.02.2023. “

¶14

Perusal of the instructions supplied today shows that the Tehsildar as well as the Sub Divisional Officer concerned have on the basis of various revenue records, reported as follows:-

¶15

माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ्ቛारा पारिरत आदेश ्ቛारा पारिरत उपरो्ሹ आदेश के ्ቅ म में अवगत कराना है किक जनकिहत याचि#का में इंकिगत आराजी संख्या -2 रकबा 02-19-15 धूर वत)मान खतौनी व्ቧ) 1425-1430 फसली में श्यामराज चितवारी, पं#देव चितवारी पु्ቔगण राधाकृष्ण चितवारी व रामनगीना पु्ቔ #᭾ᯙन्5का किनवासी स्थानीय के नाम अंकिकत है। इसमें से रामनगीना ्ቛारा अपने किहस्से की भूकिम ्ቦीमती पुष्पा देवी पत्नी राममनोज कुशवाहा किनवासी पलिलया व ्ቦीमती शा᭾ᯙन्त देवी पत्नी छेदी किनवासी पलिलया व ्ቦीमती पुष्पा देवी पत्नी किव्ቅमा कुशवाहा किनवासी पलिलया परगना जहुराबाद तहसील मुहम्मदाबाद के नाम किव्ቅय की जा #ुकी है तथा उनका नाम राजस्व अभिभलेखों में अंकिकत हो #ुका है। इससे स्प्ቖ है किक उ्ሹ भूकिम सं्ቅमणीय खातेदारों के नाम से राजस्व अभिभलेखों में अंकिकत है।

¶16

इस भूकिम के सम्बन्ध में 1359 फसली के खसरा के अवलोकन से किवकिदत होता है किक गाटा संख्या -2 का पुराना नम्बर 505/12 रहा है। सन्दቝኌभत गाटा संख्या505/12 1359 फसली के खसरा में देवराज राय के नाम अंकिकत है तथा किववरण के कालम में सिस्ቍान्त की भूकिम या गांवसभा में किनकिहत होने वाली किकसी ्ቦेणी की भूकिम का उ्ቤेख नही है। इस ᭾ᯙस्थचित में उ्ሹ भूकिम को गांव सभा की भूकिम न होने के कारण उ्ቈर्ቚ देश राजस्व संकिहता के अन्तग)त काय)वाही नहीं की गयी है। "

¶17

From the aforesaid instructions, it is clear that the property in dispute involved in the present writ petition is recorded in the names of several persons as "bhumidhar with transferable rights". It is further recorded that the number of the Gata was changed during the course of time and the property not belonging to Gaon Sabha, proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (in short 'the Code-2006') have not been initiated.

¶18

Considering the above facts and circumstances, as on today, it cannot be presumed that the land in dispute has been encroached upon by the private respondents.

¶19

However, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the land was earlier recorded as " talab " under the consolidation records and, subsequently, the private persons have succeeded to get their names wrongly entered in the subsequent revenue records.

¶20

Be that as it may, U.P. Revenue Code-2006 as well as U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1953 contains provisions for correction of entries in appropriate proceedings, therefore, in case, the concerned parties have any grievance with regard to the alleged wrong entires, they are free to adopt a recourse under the law as may be advised.

¶21

The file is consigned to record.

¶22

Order Date: -24.3.2023 Jyotsana

¶23

¶24

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

Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Prasad Srivastava 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

Sudha Vishwavindu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Dadhibal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Baj Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ruab Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bechu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Badami Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others