Writ petition seeking direction to decide a representation and action against encroachers was dismissed as not pressed, noting an efficacious remedy exists under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Writ petition dismissed as not pressed.
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.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40546 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jitendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed with following main reliefs:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24.02.2022 within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to take appropriate action against the respondent No. 4 to 7."
The record in question reflects that the petitioner has earlier invoked the writ jurisdiction by preferring Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1193 of 2021 (Jitendra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) wherein it has been alleged before the learned Single Judge that certain persons have encroached upon the public utility land and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.08.2021 directing the Assistant Collector to proceed under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. In compliance thereof, the Tehsildar has already passed the order dated 25.11.2021.
In this backdrop, learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection that in response to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the proceeding under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 has already been finalized vide order dated 25.11.2021 and if the petitioner is aggrieved with the said order, he can invoke the remedy under Section 67 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. Once efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to take recourse of the proceedings provided under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and the petitioner has already approached the revisional authority for redressal of his grievance and once the said Code itself provides remedial forum, then in such situation, no reprieve could be extended to the petitioner.
Confronted with the aforesaid situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the present writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed.
Dismissed accordingly. Needless to say, it is always open to the petitioner to press the relief before the appropriate authority.
Order Date :- 31.1.2023 Jaswant
Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Jitendra Yadav
State Of U P
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
