The Court disposed of a writ petition concerning encroachment on agricultural land. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Tehsildar under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, instead of pursuing the PIL.
Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the Tehsildar under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 19
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 374 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kalindra Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
In compliance of the order of this Court dated 14.03.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit today, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Kalindra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sunil Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.
The instant writ petition, interalia, has been filed for the following relief:
"Issue a writ or direction in nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to made spot Inspection of Pond and said village Sarai Bahadur Pargana Mohammadabad District Ghazipur and removed the encroachment made by trespasser in Arazi No. 116 area .0310 Mauza Sarai Bahadur Pargana Mohammadabad District Ghazipur to the trespasser."
At the very outset, learned Sanding Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Public Interest Litigation as the petitioner has not disclosed the credentials and other details that are required under Sub-Rule (3A) 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 further submits that apart from the objection on the maintainability of the P.I.L. the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy available under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and on this score also this petition is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length submits that he does not want to press the present writ petition and prays for a liberty to be granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 for the ventilation of his grievance. The present writ petition is disposed of with the liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Tehsildar, Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur by filing an appropriate application in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority for ventilation of his grievance. If such an application is filed within two weeks, the Tehsildar, Mohammadabad District Ghazipur shall decide the same in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid application along with certified copy to this order.
Order Date :- 27.4.2023 Satish
Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present PIL is maintainable due to lack of disclosure of credentials under the High Court Rules.
Whether an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether to dispose of the writ petition and grant liberty to approach the competent authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttarakhand v. Balwant Singh ChaufalReferred¶9
State of Uttranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal & others, 2010 AIR SCW 1029 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Prakash Yadav
State Of U.P.
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
