Bench dismissed PIL petition challenging unauthorized land occupation due to lack of petitioner credentials, non-impletment of private accused, and prior related dismissal.
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. - 52
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 514 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sri Bhagwandas Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Gaur
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Respondents to implement their own order and remove unauthorized occupation from Gata No.107 area 1.947 hectare and Gata No.205 area 2.343 hectare situated in Mauza Surawali, Pargana and District Jalaun, otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury."
petition is not in consonance with the requirement of amended provisions of Allahabad High Court Rules-1952 (in short 'the Rules-1952') amended pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 , whereby Rule (3-A) was added in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules-1952 making it mandatory for the petitioner to disclose his credentials in clear terms whenever a writ petition in the nature of PIL is filed. Apart from the fact that none of the private persons, against whom, serious allegations have been levelled, has been arrayed as a "party" to the present PIL petition, the petitioner has failed to disclose his credentials. Moreover, in the light of existence of judicial orders, some of which have been annexed by the petitioner and some of which have been referred by the State in the instructions, the prayer sought in the present PIL petition cannot be granted.
4. The present PIL petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a PIL petition challenging unauthorized occupation can be maintained without disclosing petitioner credentials and arraying private persons as parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.Referred¶10
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 · Who else cites this
Sri Bhagwandas
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Kshitij Shailendra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
