Partly allowed

Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2024/271/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ for removal of encroachment on public utility land and for deciding a pending encroachment case since 2018. The petitioner abandoned the relief for physical removal, seeking only a direction to decide the pending case within the statutory timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to decide the pending case regarding encroachment within the statutory time limit after hearing all parties.

Kamlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25524

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 271 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko And 7 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shesh Mani

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Alok Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Tushar Gupta, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.

¶8

No notice be issued to respondents no. 5 to 7 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶9

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main relief(s):

¶10

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no. 2 & 3 i.e. District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Kunda Pratapgarh, and Assistant Collector / Tehsildar, Tehsil Kunda District Pragapgarh to pass the effective order against Opposite Party No. 5, 6 and 7 to ensure the removal of encroachment from the public utility land, in the interest of justice.

¶11

"(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties specifically Opposite Party No. 4 to decide the Case No. 00508 of 2018 "Gram Sabha vs Ram Sajeevan" pending before him since 2018, in the interest of justice."

¶12

At the very outsets, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to press the relief no. 1.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the matter pertaining to encroachment made by the private respondents is pending before the respondent no. 4 bearing Case No. 00508 of 2018 in re: Gram Sabha vs Ram Sajeevan since the year 2018 and prays that the aforesaid case may be directed to be decided.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid, more particularly when the case pertaining to the encroachment made by the private respondents over the gram sabha land is pending for consideration, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

¶15

competent authority to decide the pending case in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned provided there is no legal impediment within the time frame fixed under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.3.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 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

Jageshwar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Deptt.of Home Civil Sectt. and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Aggarwal and Anr. Vs Sharad Saxena

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

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj,Lko. and 3 Others

Indradev Tiwari Alias Indradev Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ravi Shankar Tiwari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Amethi and 3 Others