Disposed

Rajnath Ram Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2023WRIC/15227/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking direction for expeditious disposition of pending enclosure removal case under U.P. Revenue Code due to lack of action and difficulties caused by encroachment; Court directed decision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to decide pending case T202115510401009 within six months from date of certified copy of this order.

Rajnath Ram Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15227 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajnath Ram Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyavrat Tripathi,Moti Lal Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pankaj Jaiswal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.

¶6

In view of the order proposed, notice to private Respondent No.5 is hereby dispensed with.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner regarding encroachment over the Chakmarg proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, were instituted and the case was numbered as Case No.T202115510401009 (Report Lekhpal vs. Ram Ugrah). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the aforesaid case was registered on 21.2.2022 but till date no action has been taken by Respondent No.3 regarding removal of encroachment from the Chakmarg.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards the representation, which is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition, given by the petitioner to Respondent No.3 on 3.12.2022 for demarcation of the aforesaid Chakmarg but no heed has been paid on his representation.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that due to the aforesaid encroachments over the Chakmarg the petitioner is facing lot of difficulties in his movement and even other residents of the village are also facing acute difficulties.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is finally disposed of with direction to Respondent No.3 to hear and decide Case No.T202115510401009 (Report Lekhpal vs. Ram Ugrah) expeditiously, preferably within a period six months from the date of the production of certified copy of this order.

¶11

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated over the merits of the case.

¶12

Needless to say that Respondent No.3, while deciding the aforesaid case, will not grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Salim

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajnath Ram Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnath Ram Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Sant Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Ram Lal Pal Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Deepa Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishnawati Devi and 3 Others Vs Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division and 2 Others

Sidhnath Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neelam Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others