Partly allowed

Umrao and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2023WRIC/38231/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ for demarcation of disputed land and action against encroachers. Court held writ not maintainable and directed filing of proper demarcation application under Revenue Code instead.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file proper demarcation application under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 22 of U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016 within three weeks.

Umrao and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:218204

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38231 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Umrao And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Subhash Singh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Subhash Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent no.6, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Counsel for respondent no.5, Gaon Sabha.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for mandamus directing the respondents to make a paimaise/ survey of the disputed plot of the Arazi Nos. 76 and 77 as well as direct the respondent authorities to take proper action against private respondent no.6 for encroaching the disputed land.

¶8

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that application filed by petitioners for demarcation has not been considered. He further submitted that private respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioners, as such, respondents be directed to consider the petitioners' application for demarcation in accordance with law.

¶9

Mr. Subhash Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent no.6 and Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that petitioners should file proper application for demarcation as provided under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 rather miscellaneous application before the authority.

¶10

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶11

The provisions for demarcation has been provided under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016, as such, petitioner should file proper application for

¶12

demarcation rather writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The instant petition is finally disposed of directing the petitioners to file proper application for demarcation under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016 within period of three weeks which shall be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer as provided under Section 24 (3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Vandana Y.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umrao and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umrao and 4 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Prasad Ahir Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahjad Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Bindu Bala Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another