Dismissed¶12

Vijay Bahadur Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024/264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed; public toilets on gaon sabha land (gata no. 147, Ghoorgaddhah, Kanak Patti, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar) held not to be illegal encroachment; mandamus for removal refused; construction under government scheme for public benefit; liberty granted to seek maintenance from appropriate authority; Single judge: Alok Mathur, J.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Order date 21.3.2024.

What did the court decide?

Public toilets constructed for the benefit of the public at large cannot be termed encroachment on the gaon sabha land, as alleged by the petitioner. ¶10

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25084

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 264 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vijay Bahadur Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhimbahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bhimbahadur Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶7

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus thereby commanding respondents to remove illegal encroachment from gata no. 147 recorded as Ghoorgaddhah in the revenue record situated at Gaon Sabha Kanak Patti, Post - Bahorikpur, Pargana & Tehsil - Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that public toilets have been constructed on the said land and construction of public toilets on the gaonsabh land is an encroachment and consequently a prayer has been made for removal of the said public toilets from the said land.

¶9

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand as opposed the writ petition and he has submitted that public toilets have been made for use of public at large as per the scheme of the government and consequently it cannot be said that it is an illegal encroachment.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, this Court is of the considered view that public toilets have been constructed for the benefit of public at large and they cannot be termed encroachment as is being done by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The construction of public toilet is for the benefit of the public at large and accordingly this Court finds no ground for interference is made out. Allowing the present writ petition would in fact is against the public interest and on this ground also this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition.

¶11

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merits and is

¶12

accordingly dismissed .

¶13

In case the petitioner feels that public toilets are not being maintained property, he is at liberty to make the application before the appropriate authority who on receipt of the said application shall take suitable steps for maintenance and up keep of the public toilets.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 21.3.2024

¶16

Ravi/

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Bahadur Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bahadur Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

M/S Pratyusha Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mr. Piyush Kumar Mishra Vs Addl. Commissioner,Grade-Ii(Appeal)-Iv, State Tax Lucknow and Another

Mushtar Khan and Others Vs Raj Bahadur Singh and Others

Prashant Kumar Yadav @ Veeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Arun Kumar Dubey @ Arun Kumar Vs U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited Lko. Thru. Branch Manager Distt. Faizabad

Vikash Singh and 19 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others