Dismissed

Beni Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023WPIL/414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected a public interest litigation challenging the title of private individuals over public land. Holding that judicial proceedings finalized by the Board of Revenue cannot be set aside in a PIL, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; aggrieved persons may avail remedies available under law against the finalized judicial orders.

Beni Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 414 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Beni Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Ranjan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the concerned Gaon Sabha as respondent No. 6 during the course of the day.

¶6

Heard Shri Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Azad Rai, learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation with a prayer to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to remove illegal encroachment over Plot No. 217 area 0.570, Plot No. 218, area 0.2280, Plot No. 222 area 0.4220 and 224-A, which are public utility land as "Usar" and "Banjar" land. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 01.05.2022 of the petitioner.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions, which are taken on record. A perusal of the instructions reveals that respondent No. 4 has died on 08.02.2015.

¶9

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel has furnished upon him a complete set of instructions.

¶10

Further, the instructions reveal that the land in respect whereof, the relief has been sought in the present writ petition, has been recorded in the names of private persons as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. Relevant extract from Khataunis has also been annexed along with the instructions.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the various annexures to the writ petition, submits that previously certain proceedings were held in the court of Sub Divisional Officer concerned, and thereafter, the matter was decided up to the Board of Revenue, however orders on the basis whereof

¶12

Bhumidahri rights have been claimed by the privaterespondents, do not exist. He further submits that a compromise took place before the Board of Revenue on the basis whereof, the proceedings have been decided and submits that orders obtained by the private-respondents in respect of public land are nullity for multiple reasons.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel submits that once judicial proceedings have been finalized upto the Board of Revenue, the said orders cannot be set at naught in a petition, which has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation and, moreover, the latest Khataunis indicate that the names of the private persons have been recorded in the capacity of Bhumidhars with transferable rights and the land is not recorded as Usar and Banjar as alleged by the petitioner.

¶14

Considering the nature of the proceedings as well as matter having attained finality on the judicial side, the prayers made in the present writ petition, which has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation cannot be entertained.

¶15

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶16

However, in case anybody is aggrieved from the orders passed on the judicial side, he may avail remedy as may be available to him under the law.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 Sazia

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Beni Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beni Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avanish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Javed and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhalak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 22 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Mamta Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others