Disposed¶13

Dhurv Uppadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2024/458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; PIL No. 458 of 2024; Dhurv Uppadhyay v. State of U.P. and others; Manish Mathur J.; order dated 27.5.2024; alleged encroachment over gata No. 663, village Ramapur, Tehsili Sadar, district Ayodhya; bhumidhari/abadi revenue recording; gaon sabha land; disputed questions of fact; writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach revenue authorities under the revenue code or file injunction suit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned under the revenue code or to file an injunction suit; petition disposed of with these directions. ¶13

Dhurv Uppadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40122

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 458 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dhurv Uppadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 10 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Pandey,Prem Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4 and Mr. Govind Chaurasiya Advocatee Holding brief on behalf of Mr. Mohan Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.5. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties 6 to 11 dispensed with.

¶8

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for removal of alleged illegal encroachment over gata No. 663 having an area of 4.9960 of Hectares out of which allegedly encroachment has been made over 0.076 Hectares in village Ramapur, Tehsili Sadar, district Ayodhya.

¶9

Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 25th May, 2024, which are taken on record and as per which out of the total area of the aforesaid gata No.663, an area of 0.0840 Hectares has been recorded as bhumidhari and 4.9120 has been indicated as abadi.

¶10

The instructions also indicate that there is no reserved land for gaon sabha in the aforesaid gata and about 90 houses stand constructed over aforesaid gata since a very long time. Petitioner's house is also said to have been constructed on the same gata along with that of opposite parties 6 to 11.

¶11

However learned counsel for petitioner has disputed the aforesaid report with the submission that the instructions have apparently been submitted with regard to some other gata. It has also been submitted that petitioner has time and again made complaints with regard to illegal encroachments which have been stopped by the concerned authorities themselves.

¶12

In view of submissions, it appears that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition due to which liberty is granted to petitioner to approach the authorities concerned under the revenue code or for filing an injunction suit.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2024 prabhat

¶14

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

Dhurv Uppadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhurv Uppadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 10 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

Sonu Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 7 Others

Virendra Kumar Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Anurudh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 4 Others

Anita Yadav vs Gaurav Kumar

Ravi Lona vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Manoj Kumar Singh and Another vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Branch Office Lucknow