Dismissed

Baba Ram Naresh Das Mahanth @ Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024/26/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition sought removal of illegal encroachment over village land. The court held that factual disputes exist and granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 for adjudication within three months, subsequently dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application under Section 67 of Revenue Code, 2006; decision on encroachment to be considered within three months.

Baba Ram Naresh Das Mahanth @ Ram Naresh Vs State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30935

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 26 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Baba Ram Naresh Das Mahanth @ Ram Naresh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Kumar Chourasia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 4 and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties no. 6 to 10 stands dispensed with.

¶8

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authorities for removal of alleged illegal encroachment over Gaon Sabha land comprised in Gata Nos. 116/0.2020 hectare, 127/0.1380 hectare, 136/0.2590 hectare, 227/0.0170 hectare, 240/0.0990 hectare and 299/0.0080 hectare, situated in Village Jabdi H/O- Harivanshpur, Pargana- Nanpara Tehsil- Jamunha, District Shrawasti.

¶9

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties it has been indicated that encroachment was found only over Gata No. 116 measuring 0.2020 hectares and proceedings against the encroachers had been initiated whereafter all the encroachments have been removed.

¶10

The aforesaid fact has been disputed.

¶11

However, since disputed questions of fact are involved in the present petition, liberty is granted to petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 with regard to his grievance pertaining to alleged illegal encroachment. In case any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of three months alongwith consequential action, if any required, from the date of initiation of proceedings.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 Satish

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Baba Ram Naresh Das Mahanth @ Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baba Ram Naresh Das Mahanth @ Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahak Singh Vs State of U.P.through Secretary Rural Development and 17 Ors.

Dulara Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sect. Lko. and 5 Others

Sanju Alias Sanju Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Ram Din Vs State of U.P. through Collector Gonda and Others

Sushil Chandra Vs Addl. Commissioner First and Others

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