Disposed

Rakshapal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/389/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coure disposed of a PIL alleging illegal encroachment on a public road in Lakhimpur Kheri. Without deciding merits, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek removal of encroachment through existing statutory remedies before the Tehsildar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to move application under Sections 26/67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before Tehsildar for expeditious decision.

Rakshapal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45219

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 389 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rakshapal Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 11 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and perused the material available on record.

¶9

In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that private respondents have encroached upon public road bearing Gata No. 874 area 0.1130 hectare situated at Village Neemgaon, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri. He further submits that the petitioner has given several representations regarding the illegal encroachment which has been done by the private respondents over the public road to the revenue authority but no action has been taken by him to remove the illegal encroachment from the public land.

¶11

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner would be substantially met in case the Tehsildar, Tehsil Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to proceed in accordance with law and remove the said encroachment.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has efficacious remedy under Sections 26/67

¶13

of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where it has been provided if the Tehsildar finds that any obstacle impedes the free use of a public road, path or common land of a village or obstructs the road or water course or source of water, he may direct the removal of such obstacle and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may recover the cost.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner at this stage submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to move an application under Section 26/67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority.

¶15

Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition, is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move applications under Section 26/67 of the U.P. Revenue Code before the concerned Tehsildar and in case such application is move within two weeks from today, said authority is directed to proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Virendra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakshapal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakshapal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 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

Ved Prakash Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ankit Kumar Agarwal Vs Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,Ayodhya Division,Ayodhya and Another

Ankit Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Food and Civil Supply , Lucknow and Others

Rakshapal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

E-City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Rpresentative vs Moksh Innovations Inc. a Sole Propriety Concern Thru. Proprietor, Mr. Akshay Kumar Thakur

Om Prakash and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others