Dismissed

Kalawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023WRIC/25582/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that relief for removing encroachment from agricultural land falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authority under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it is not maintainable; the petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Kalawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189126

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25582 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Kalawati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Dhar Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶7

The instant petition has been instituted for seeking relief in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the responding authorities to remove the illegal encroachment from the Bhumidhari Land Arazi no. 566, area-0.032 hectare of the petitioner, situated at village-Tilanga, Tehsil-Madiyahun, DistrictJaunpur which has been alleged that the encroachment is carried out by the respondent no. 5 and for seeking similar relief, petitioner already preferred application dated 13.12.2022, 08.01.2023 but no action has been taken up by the responding authorities which rises cause of action in favour of the petitioner to institute the present writ petition.

¶8

On previous occasion, specific instructions have been called from the respondent no. 2 and the same has been received by learned Standing counsel which is taken on record. By bare perusal of the instructions, it has been apprised by the revenue authorities that no application has been preferred by the petitioner under the statutory provisions contained in U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, specifically under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the respondent no. 5 before competent revenue authority. By mere filing the representation, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be acceded to.

¶9

On a precise query made before learned counsel for the petitioner that whether any proceeding initiated by the petitioner under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006? The same has been replied by learned counsel for petitioner that no as such proceeding under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated by the petitioner.

¶10

After having versions of learned counsel for the parties which has been exchanged during course of arguments, it is crystal clear that the prayer as sought through the instant petition directly attracts the jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, but the same has never been opted by the petitioner. Entertaining the present petition will directly bypass the statutory provisions in shape of relief contained under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 available to the petitioner but the same has not been invoked and the present petition has been preferred directly before this Court and the same is not maintainable.

¶11

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, there is hardly any scope available for extending relief as sought for in the present petition and as such writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 Shaswat

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kalawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati Devi 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

Smt. Asha Devi and Another Vs Additional Commissioner and 4 Others

Suresh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shri Dharmendra Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mishri Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrasekhar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others