Disposed

Aparna Maurya v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2023WPIL/456/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, petitioner sought directions to remove illegal occupation of government land in Hathigahan village. The Court noted the State's instruction found no encroachment and that a related civil suit addressed different properties, deeming it unnecessary to issue directions in these proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Consigned to record; invoked jurisdiction under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 left to petitioner.

Aparna Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 456 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Aparna Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parvez Alam,Raj Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai,Raj Nath Bhakta

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Parvez Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Azad Rai, learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha and Shri Raj Nath Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, Nityanand Maurya @ Bulle.

¶6

This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Authorities to remove the illegal occupation and encroachment by respondent No. 4 to 6 on the Government/public utility land/public way situated at Gata (Plot) No. 1170 and 1172 Kha, in village Hathigahan, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, district Allahabad. Further prayer is made to decide the petitioner's representation dated 22.07.2021.

¶7

In sum and substance, the allegation is that the private-respondents are obstructing the public utility land/public way covered by Gata No. 1170 and 1172 Kha, in village Hathigahan, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, district Allahabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards page 35 of the paper book, which shows that some expenditure was made for the purposes of maintenance of Kharanja from Lucknow road to Bulle home. This "Bulle" is nick name of the respondent No.4.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has placed instructions supplied by Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon, Prayagraj, which read as follows:

¶10

"1. गगमहथथगहगहतहससल-ससरगहवससथतआरगजससहखयग 1170 व 1172 खआबगदसखगतगशशणस 6 (2) ककभभममहह, जससगवरजमनकउपयसगकक भभममककपररथधममनहहआतसहह।

¶11

आरगजससहखयग - 1170 व 1172 खममपपरगनसआबगदसबससहहईहह। उसममयगमचनसकगमकगनभसबनगहहआहह।इनकशघरकशसगमनशएकरगसतग हह, जसआबगदससशहसतगहहआ, मनतयगननदमवपकससहखयग 4 ककभभममधरस भभममतकआतगहह।थजसपरखडहजगमबछगहहआहह।रगसतगपभरसतरह खगलसहह।उसपरकसईअवरसधनहहहह।

¶12

यगमचनसकशघरकशसगमनशमवपकससहखयग 4 ककभभममधरसआरगजस सहखयग- 1169 व 1171 हह।यगमचनसकशघरकशठसकसगमनशजसखडहजग मगगरबनगहहवहमनतयगननदककभभममधरसभभममपरबनगहह।मनतयगननदनश अपनगमकगनअपनसभभममधरसभभममपरबनगरखगहह।

¶13

मनतयगननदनशरगसतशकशसगमनशअपनसभभममधरसभभममपरअपनगमकगन बनगरखगहह।इससथलएउसनशअपनसभभममधरसभभममपररगसतगबनवगतशहहए, खडहजगलगगनशककअनपममतपधगनकसदशमदयगथग।थजसपररगसतगचगलभ हह।कसईवयवधगननहहहह।

¶14

यगमचनसअपनशघरककनगलसमवपकसककभभममधरसभभममसशमनकगलनग चगहतसहह।थजसपरमवपकसमनतयगननदनशमदवगनसनयगयगलयममअपनस भभममधरसभभममआरगजससहखयग- 1169 व 1171 कशसमबनधममसथगन आद पगपकररखगहह। (दसवगनसनयगयगलयदगरगपगररतआद ककपमत सहलगहह।)

¶15

यगमचनसनशपशगतजनमहतयगमचकगजनमहतममनदगथखलकरअपनश थलएनगलसमनकगलनशकशबहगनशसशदगथखलमकयगहहऔरआमरगसतग बगथधतनहहहह।"

¶16

A perusal of the instructions, on the one hand, shows that no obstructions have been found over land covered by Gata Nos. 1170 and 1172 Kha, and on the other hand, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has filed the present P.I.L. with personal motive regarding drainage (Naali) and that the public way has not been obstructed.

¶17

Shri Raj Nath Bhakta, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4 submits that he has filed a civil suit being Original Suit No. 1822 of 2021 against five persons in the court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sharki, Allahabad, in which a detailed injunction order has been passed on 20.04.2022 directing the parties to the suit to maintain status quo in respect of the land in dispute. He, therefore, submits that defendants of the suit have put forward the petitioner, who is not the party to the suit, and therefore, this public interest litigation is an abuse of process of law.

¶18

Shri Parvez Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property involved in the suit is different from the property involved in the present matter.

¶19

This Court finds that civil suit is in respect of Gata Nos. 1169 and

¶20

1171, however, the grievance in the suit is with regard to Rasta itself, which is apparent from perusal of the plaint map, copy whereof has been annexed at page 42 of the writ petition.

¶21

Whatever may be the merits of the civil suit or the rival claim of the parties, in view of the stand taken by the State in the instructions supplied by the Sub Divisional Officer regarding no encroachment over the land covered by Gata No. 1170 and 1172 Kha, without making further comments on merits and demerit of the rival claims, it is not necessary to issue any direction in the present proceedings.

¶22

However, Shri Parvez Alam, learned counsel submits that encroachment is existing on record and he may be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent court under section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶23

The petitioner may take recourse to law, as may be available to him, under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶24

This petition is consigned to record with the aforesaid observations.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.3.2023 Sazia

¶26

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

Aparna Maurya v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aparna Maurya v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Waziullah Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaggannath Vs State of U.P. and 46 Others

Jitendra Pal Singh Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Ravi Shankar Vs State of U.P.and 6 Others

Gauri Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others