Disposed

Rohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023WRIC/7531/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the Assistant Collector regarding encroachment of Gram Sabha land. The Collector was directed to conduct proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code within six months, following prescribed rules, while providing a hearing to alleged encroachers. The petition was disposed of as a direction order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit representation to Assistant Collector; direction to hold proceedings within six months with opportunity of hearing.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7531 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent - Gram Panchayat.

¶6

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to get vacate the Gram Sabha land bearing Arazi No.170 Rakba 0.2000 hectare and Arazi No.166 Rakba 0.890 hectare situated in Gram Sabha Tisentulapur Tappa Manda, District Prayagraj and take legal action against the guilty person and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities specially the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25.01.2023 expeditiously within a stipulated period of time during pendency of the present writ petition.

¶7

It would serve no purpose to keep the writ petition pending and, therefore, it is directed that the petitioner may submit an application/representation before the Assistant Collector concerned bringing the relevant facts regarding encroachment over the aforesaid plots to the notice of the concerned Assistant Collector, who, if no proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been registered in relation to the encroachment over the aforesaid plots, on receiving said representation, shall enquire into the allegation made by the petitioner, after registering the proceedings.

¶8

The Assistant Collector concerned shall ensure that the alleged encroachers are arrayed as parties to the representation with specific details.

¶9

The Assistant Collector concerned shall follow the procedure prescribed under Section 67 of the Code as well as Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months when the aforesaid representation is filed by the petitioner.

¶10

In the entire proceedings, full opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the concerned alleged encroachers and the matter shall be dealt with strictly in consonance with the ratio laid down by this Court in Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2023 (1) AWC 4 and in Leellu Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2023 (3) ADJ 97 .

¶11

It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the claim as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶13

Before the order could be signed, it stood revealed that file of the present case was not traceable despite best efforts.

¶14

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court called upon learned counsel for the petitioner to supply another copy of the writ petition from his record for the purpose of reconstruction of record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced another copy of the writ petition which is taken on record and is treated as true copy of the original petition.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Atul

¶17

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

Rohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udai Bhan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sanju Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Laichi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Pyare Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Hakik Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others