Disposed

Smt. Dropadi Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 May 2023WRIC/14774/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition concerning the destruction of boundary pillar stones. The Court treated the petitioner's application under Section 23 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to hear respondents and pass orders within one month.

What did the court decide?

To treat the application under Section 23 and pass appropriate orders after hearing respondents within one month.

Smt. Dropadi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100568

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14774 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Dropadi Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maruti Kumar Tripathi,Bhupendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a final order was passed on 18.08.2022, in compliance whereof the pillar stones were installed on the spot on 19.01.2023 in the presence of the parties and necessary spot memo and reports were prepared which have been annexed along with the writ petition.

¶8

The submission is that thereafter the private respondents have destroyed and dismantled the said pillar stones and the petitioner who is a very old lady aged about 80 years has moved an application on 05.04.2023 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tamkuhiraj, District Kushinagar complaining the aforesaid act and has requested for restoration of the pillar stones. The said application is pending and no order has been passed thereon.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that for the nature of the grievance raised by means of present writ petition, remedy lies under Section 23 of Code, 2006, which is reproduced herein below:-

¶10

" 23. Power to require erection, repair or renewal of boundary marks. - (1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, on receipt of the recommendations of the Naib- Tahsildar under section 22, or otherwise, require a Gram Panchayat in relation to a village and a tenure-holder in relation to his holding, to erect or restore proper boundary marks or to repair or replace the same in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶11

(2) Where the Gram Panchayat or a tenure holder fails to erect, restore, repair or replace the boundary marks as required under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer may cause such boundary marks to be erected, restored, repaired or replaced, as the case may be, and recover the cost thereof from such Gram Panchayat or the tenure holder in the manner prescribed."

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with following directions:-

¶13

(a) The application dated 05.04.2023 (annexure No.9 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner before the sub-Divisional Officer concerned shall be treated as an application under Section 23 of the Code, 2006.

¶14

(b) The Sub-Divisional Officer concerned shall immediately take up the matter and after hearing the private respondents 3 and 4 and after summoning the necessary records of proceedings under Section 24 and their compliance report etc from the officials, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, positively, within a period of one month from today.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.5.2023 AKShukla/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Dropadi Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dropadi Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Raja Chatar Pratap Singh and 2 Others Vs Commissioner Aligarh and 3 Others

Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Murti Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pankaj Garg Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Surendra Singh Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others