Disposed¶15

Sabit Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2024/419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL maintainability; Chapter 22 Rule 3(A) Allahabad High Court Rules; Section 38(2) Revenue Code 2006; gaon sabha property; removal of alleged illegal encroachment; gata Nos. 275, 276, 277, 278, 303, 325; village Saray Sujan, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh; lekhpal report 2015; pond land; final order 12.01.2022; statutory remedy in lieu of writ petition; liberty to avail statutory remedies; petition disposed of. Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:37152.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to avail himself of the statutory remedies available to him. ¶15

Sabit Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to avail himself of the statutory remedies available to him.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the concerned authorities should be directed to ensure removal of the alleged illegal encroachment by opposite parties 6 to 10 over gata Nos. 275, 276, 277, 278, 303 and 325 situated in village Saray Sujan, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh. +2 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Since orders under Section 38(2) of the Revenue Code have already been passed, it is appropriate for the petitioner to avail himself of the statutory remedy instead of filing a writ petition before this Court.

¶13

Key takeaways

Although a preliminary objection was raised that the petition is not maintainable as a public interest litigation, the parties were heard and the objection ignored because the prayer relates to plots indicated as gaon sabha property; the maintainability question was thereby left unadjudicated.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 419 of 2024, Sabit Ali v. State of U.P. thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 17, Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.; Order Date 15.5.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:37152). The petitioner sought a direction to concerned authorities to ensure removal of alleged illegal encroachment by opposite parties 6 to 10 over gata Nos. 275, 276, 277, 278, 303 and 325 in village Saray Sujan, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh, plots indicated as gaon sabha property. Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as a PIL since the petitioner's private interest was involved and credentials were not indicated in the correct format per Chapter 22 Rule 3(A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules; despite this, the parties were heard and the objection ignored. The record showed a lekhpal report of 2015 prompting proceedings under Section 38(2) of the Revenue Code 2006, a final order dated 12th January, 2022 declaring other plots pond land, and apparent implied rejection of the report concerning the plots sought here. Holding: since orders under Section 38(2) had already been passed, the petitioner was to avail the statutory remedy instead of a writ petition; the petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37152

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 419 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sabit Ali

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi,Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4, Mr. Pankaj Gupta learned counsel for opposite party No.5 and Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Pandey and Mr. Vimlesh Tiwari learned counsel for opposite parties 6 to 10 whose power filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 11th May, 2024 which are taken on record.

¶9

Petition has been filed as public interest litigation seeking a direction to concerned authorities to ensure removal of alleged illegal encroachment by opposite parties 6 to 10 over gata Nos. 275, 276, 277, 278, 303 and 325 situated in village Saray Sujan, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh.

¶10

Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for other opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection that petition is not maintainable as a public interest litigation since petitioner's private interest is involved and proper credentials in terms of Chapter 22 Rule 3(A) of Allahabad High Court Rules have not been indicated in correct format.

¶11

However despite said objection being raised, it appears that since prayer has been made with regard to plots indicated as gaon sabha property, learned counsel for parties have been heard ignoring such preliminary objection.

¶12

From the record it appears that report by lekhpal had been submitted in 2015 on the basis of which proceedings under Section 38(2) of the Revenue Code 2006 were initiated and final order dated 12th January, 2022 was passed with regard to other plots which was held to be pond land. However the report regarding plots for which relief has been sought in the present petition appear to have been impliedly rejected.

¶13

Since orders under section 38(2) of the Revenue code have already been passed, it would be appropriate for the petitioner

¶14

to avail himself of the statutory remedy instead of filing a writ petition before this Court.

¶15

In view of aforesaid, petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to avail himself of the statutory remedies available to him.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.5.2024 prabhat

¶17

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

Sabit Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabit Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Department, Lucknow and Others Vs Arun Kumar Kulshrestha

Harishankar Vs State of U.P.through the Collector Barabanki

Keerti Bajpai Vs Gaurav Bajpai

Smt. Ruchi Pandey @ Ruchi Mishra and Ors. Vs Priyavart Mishra @ Ravi

Govind Shara Singh and Others Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Others

Vaheed Khan @ Mohammad Vahid Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow and Others