Dismissed

Hamid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024/437/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged illegal encroachment on public utility land. Court dispensed with notices, dismissed PIL on advice of efficacious remedy, and granted liberty to proceed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before competent authority within two weeks.

Hamid Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46801

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 437 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Hamid Khan

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4.

¶8

In light of the proposed order, notices to respondent No. 6 is dispensed with.

¶9

Petitioner approached this court seeking a direction to State authorities to take necessary action against the respondent No. 6 who has illegally encroached the land gata No. 168/0.2350 hect. which is recorded as Naveen Parti Land in revenue record of Village - Bariya Pur, Tahsil Amethi, District Amethi.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No. 6 along with other villagers are illegally encroaching upon the land of Gata No. 168/0.2350 hect. situated at aforesaid village despite the fact that the same is public utility land and recorded as Naveen Parti. It has also been stated that several representations have been made by the petitioner in this regard to the competent authority but no action has been taken by them consequently present writ petition has been filed.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where after obtaining report of Revenue Inspector and issuing notices to the alleged encroachers, effective orders for removal of the alleged encroachments as well as levy of penalty can be passed in case the allegations are found correct.

¶12

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

¶13

Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition, is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the respondent No. 4 and in case such an application is made within two weeks from today, respondent No. 4 is directed to proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 10.7.2024 Ravi/

¶16

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

Hamid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Sardar Auto Engineering Co.through Its Partner Vs Commissioner Trade Tax

Astha Singh Thru. Father Shri Virendra Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education, Lucknow and Others

Avinash Kumar Mishra Vs District Magistrate, Balrampur and Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Urban Development, Lucknow and Others

Govind Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Laxmi Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Shravasti and 3 Others