Disposed

Devendra Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024/15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL seeking removal of encroachments on banjar land Gata No. 400 and prevention of interference in a sanctioned interlocking road. Court directed authorities to remove encroachment under Section 67 Revenue Code within three months after due hearing; road prayer lost efficacy as project was cancelled; boundary application to be filed afresh; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directions for removal of encroachment over Gata No. 400 within three months; liberty to file fresh Section 23 boundary application and to challenge road-cancellation order.

Devendra Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27569

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 15 of 2024 Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Anshuman Sharma,Athar Ali,Nidhi Singh Rathour,Sanjai Singh,Shantanu Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Ran Vijay Yadav,Vikas Chaturvedi,Vinai Kumar Bhatt

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4, Mr. Govind Chaurasia, learned counsel holding brief on behalf of Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 and Mr. Vinay Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for opposite parties no.7 & 10 and Mr. Ran Vijay Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.9.

¶6

In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite parties no.6, 8, 11 & 12 stand dispensed with.

¶7

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for ensuring removal of illegal encroachment of opposite parties no.6 to 10 over Gata No.400 having an area of 0.148 hectare, (being a banjar land). Further prayer to prevent the private opposite party from interfering in construction of metal road/ pitch road approved by the Village Development Agency, Ayodhya dated 16.01.2023 byway of interlocking has also been sought as a direction to opposite parties for measurement of boundaries over Gata No.400.

¶8

Earlier order dated 31.01.2024 is as follows:

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikram Soni, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, Sri Vinay Kumar Bhatt, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of the respondents no. 7 & 10 and Sri Ran Vijay Yadav, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of the respondent no. 9.

¶10

Instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure the removal of illegal encroachment of the private respondents over Gata No. 400 area 0.148 hectare recorded as banjar land. A further prayer is to restrain the respondents no. 6 to 10 from interfering in the construction of metal road/pitch road which has been approved by the District Village Development Agency, Ayodhya and other reliefs.

¶11

The Court had required the learned Standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

¶12

Today, Sri Vikram Soni, learned Standing counsel on the basis of instructions sent by Tehsildar, Sadar, Ayodhya dated 21.01.2024 informs that land Gata No. 400 was inspected and encroachment was found by thirteen persons. He further states against the eight encroachers, proceedings have earlier been initiated under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006") and orders for eviction have been passed and further proceedings would be taken in accordance with law. He also states that the proceedings against the remaining five persons have already been initiated under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 which are still pending before the competent authority and the proceedings shall be taken to their logical end within the time specified under the Code, 2006 and the rules governing the same.

¶13

As regard, the construction of road, learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek specific instructions in this regard.

¶14

List this case in the next week as fresh."

¶15

Considering the aforesaid situation and an undertaking given by State Authorities for removal of encroachment over the Gata in question in terms of Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006, opposite parties no.2 to 4 are directed to ensure removal of encroachment over Gata No.400 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to alleged encroachers and after establishing encroachment, if any.

¶16

Mr. Neeraj Chaurasia, learned State counsel on the basis of written instructions dated 19.03.2024, a copy of which is taken on record submits that although a road by way of interlocking tiles had been sanctioned but the same has been cancelled vide order dated 30.09.2023 and the amount sanctioned for the aforesaid project has been amalgamated in other projects.

¶17

In view of aforesaid, prayer no.2 has lost its efficacy although petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the order dated 30.09.2023 if he so desires. So far as prayer regarding measurement of boundaries is concerned, petitioner has already submitted an application dated 16.05.2023. It is submitted that the same is still pending consideration.

¶18

In view of aforesaid, however since the same is not in the proper format in terms of Section 23 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh application before concerned authority which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of .

¶20

Order Date : - 4.4.2024 Subodh/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devendra Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs Smt. Raj Kumari Shukla and Ors.

Mathura Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. through Its Secy.Revenue Dept.Lucknow and Ors.

Sudheer Kumar Dixit S/O Ambika Prasad Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Revenue and Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Addl.Commissioner Lucknow and Others

Jainul Abdeen Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 4 Others