Disposed

Sarvdev Shukla v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023WRIC/23293/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning encroachment on disputed agricultural land, the High Court disposed of the matter without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the Third Respondent to expeditiously remove remaining debris from demolished encroachments and redress the petitioner's grievance within six weeks after affording opportunities to stakeholders.

What did the court decide?

Third Respondent directed to remove debris of demolished encroachment and not to prevent petitioner from using land as pathway; grievance to be redressed within six weeks.

Sarvdev Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177650-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23293 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sarvdev Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

The present writ petition has been preferred for a mandamus commanding the respondents to remove all encroachment from Arazi No. 923 situated at village Bangaon Patti, Pargana Rari, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur. With a further prayer commanding the respondents to remove the debris of demolished encroachment and permit the villagers including the petitioner to utilize the aforesaid Arazi as a pathway.

¶6

The matter was taken on 25.7.2023 and this Court has proceeded to pass the following order.

¶7

"1. The record itself reveal that the illegal encroachments, which were made on the road have already been demolished but till date debris have not been removed by the respondents.

¶8

2. Let, learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter.

¶9

3. Needless to say, the grievance of the petitioner must be redressed on or before the next date fixed.

¶10

4. Put up this matter again on 14.08.2023 as fresh. "

¶11

As the advocates are abstaining from judicial work, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition for consideration. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, we dispose of the writ petition asking the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Badlapur, District Jaunpur/third respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner and reprieve him strictly in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order but certainly after affording opportunity to all stake holders in matter. Needless to say, in case debris of demolished encroachment are still lying on the spot, the same may also be removed forthwith.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 A.K.Srivastava

¶13

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvdev Shukla v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvdev Shukla v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahaveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bidya Niwas Chauhan Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Suvidha Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar Dohare and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jaynath Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dilip Kumar Rampat Kewat Vs Union of India and 3 Others