Disposed¶15

Indresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2024/344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:31696; PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 344 of 2024; Indresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue and others; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; order dated 23.4.2024; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Case No. T202404680402437; Tehsildar Kadipur; removal of encroachment; Naveen Parti Land Gata No. 313; 0.0310 hectare; Village Bawaripur/Barwaripur; Pargana Aldemau; District Sultanpur; alternative statutory remedy; PIL disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Since statutory proceedings for removal of encroachment have already been initiated, no interference is required to be made by the writ court in the public interest litigation. ¶14

Indresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31696

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 344 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Indresh Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. And 7 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Awanish Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Awanish Kumar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha-opposite party no. 5 and perused the record.

¶9

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a appropriate direction to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 to remove illegal encroachment made by the opposite party nos. 6 to 8 over the Naveen Parti Land Gata No. 313 area 0.0310 hectare, situated at Village Bawaripur, Pargana Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur.

¶10

The learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that opposite party no. 6 in the writ petition is Haushila Mishra whereas opposite party no. 7 is described as Preeti Mishra, wife of late Haushila Mishra. He has submitted that in case Haushila Mishra, huaband of Preeti Mishra, is shown to be dead, Haushila Mishra could not have been made an opposite party in the writ petition as no writ petition may be filed against a dead person.

¶11

Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned

¶12

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that late has been written against the name of Haushila Mishra in description of opposite party no. 7 due to a typographical error.

¶13

On the basis of written instructions submitted by the Tehsildar Kadipur, Sultanpur, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the name of the village mentioned in the prayer clause of the writ petition i.e. Bawaripur is incorrect and the village is Barwaripur and proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been initiated in the court of Tehsildar Kadipur by filing Case No. T202404680402437 against opposite party no. 6, which is fixed for 06.05.2024.

¶14

As statutory proceedings for removal of encroachment have already been initiated no interference is required to be made by this Court in this Public Interest Litigation.

¶15

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 23.4.2024 Pradeep/-

¶17

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

Indresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santoshi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sushil and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Om Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Goklendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. through Collector Kheri and Others

Sani Chhayli @ Sani Sisodiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Atul Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.