Writ petition challenging alleged encroachment on public land disposed of. The Court found that Standing Counsel showed evidence that there was hardly any encroachment on the plot in question, negating the cause of action.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173187
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16401 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ramanand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jata Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Order Date :- 28.8.2023 Vivek Kr.
Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus will lie to remove alleged illegal encroachment when no such encroachment is found on the public land in question.
Ramanand
State Of U.P.
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
