In this public interest litigation, the Allahabad High Court observed that pending recovery proceedings have been initiated against the alleged encroachers and therefore disposed of the petition without exercising further jurisdiction.
Provided opportunity to parties in pending proceedings and dismissed the PIL petition.
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. - 651 of 2023
Petitioner :- Hira Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Jawahar Lal Pandey
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
Heard Shri Sanjeev Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Gaon Sabha and Shri Jawahar Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 to 7.
The petitioner alleges encroachment over land covered by Arazi No.495 area 0.0300 hectares situated at Village Patkaniya, Tehsil Zamania, District-Ghazipur.
Learned Standing Counsel has placed instructions before the Court which are taken on record. The instructions reveal that following cases have been registered under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 against the alleged encroachers which are pending.
(1). T-202314290300854; (2). T-202314290300855; (3). T-202314290300856; (4). T-202314290300857;
(5). T-202314290300858.
Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that time and again measurement/demarcation activity has taken place on the spot and the private respondents are not encroachers over any part of the land. He further submits that this Public Interest Litigation petition is an abuse of process of law. Shri Pandey has also placed on record various proceedings of demarcation.
Be that as it may, since statutory proceedings have been
registered, in case, the respondents are parties to the same, they shall be provided full opportunity of filing objections and leading evidence in the said proceedings. The proceedings shall be concluded after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after following the mandate of law laid down by this Court in the cases of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2023 (1) AWC 4 and Leellu Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2023 (3) ADJ 97.
The present public interest litigation petition is, accordingly, disposed off.
Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate relief despite pending statutory proceedings for encroachment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶12
Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2023 (1) AWC 4
Leellu Vs. State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶12
Leellu Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2023 (3) ADJ 97
Hira Yadav
State Of U.P.
Kshitij Shailendra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
