Disposed

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023WPIL/787/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition sought directions to initiate proceedings regarding alleged encroachment over public land in Baghpat. The Court directed the Assistant Collector to inquire, register proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code if not already done, include encroachers as parties, follow prescribed rules, afford hearing opportunities, and pass orders within six months, while explicitly reserving the ad

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit representation to Assistant Collector to initiate enquiry under Section 67, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, ensuring encroachers are included, hearing is afforded, and order pas

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 787 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Dhar Yadav,Aijaz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Aijaz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing District Magistrate, Baghpat and respondent no. 2, Addl. District Collector (F/R)/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Baghpat to take appropriate action against respondent nos. 6 and 7. Further prayer is that a direction be issued to respondent no. 3 the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the representation dated 15.11.2022.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondent no. 6 has died, who was the Revenue Inspector of the Tehsil concerned.

¶8

The allegation contained in the writ petition is that the encroachment has been made over the public utility land covered by plot nos. 405, 406 and 407.

¶9

It would serve no purpose to keep the writ petition pending and, therefore, it is directed that the petitioner may submit an application/representation before the Assistant Collector concerned bringing the relevant facts regarding encroachment over the aforesaid plots to the notice of the concerned Assistant Collector, who, if no proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been registered in relation to the encroachment over the aforesaid plots, on receiving said representation, shall enquire into the allegation made by the petitioner, after registering the proceedings.

¶10

The Assistant Collector concerned shall ensure that the alleged encroachers are arrayed as parties to the representation with specific details.

¶11

The Assistant Collector concerned shall follow the procedure

¶12

prescribed under Section 67 of the Code as well as Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months when the aforesaid representation is filed by the petitioner.

¶13

In the entire proceedings, full opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the concerned alleged encroachers and the matter shall be dealt with strictly in consonance with the ratio laid down by this Court in Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2023 (1) AWC 4 and in Leellu Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2023 (3) ADJ 97.

¶14

It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the claim as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 Faridul

¶17

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laichi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Ram Pyare Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Daya Sugar Gagalheri and Another Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and 3 Others

Gazi Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Genda Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others