Dismissed

Sayeed Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024/613/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding illegal encroachment on public utility land, the court held that since proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code were initiated, no further directions were needed for some plots. However, the hearing was expedited for others, and liberty was given for an application regarding the remaining plot.

What did the court decide?

No further directions required; expedite hearing; liberty granted for application regarding Gata No. 971.

Sayeed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53216

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 613 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sayeed Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Singh,Abhishek Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shamim Rizvi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, 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 remove the illegal encroachment from the public utility land bearing Gata No. 968, 969 and 971 situated at Gram Ajhui, Pargana Meeranpur, District - Sultanpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that private respondents along with other villagers are illegally encroaching upon the land of Gata No. 968, 969 and 971 situated at aforesaid village despite the fact that the same is public utility land. 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 basis of instructions has submitted that with regard to Gata Nos. 968 and 969 proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been initiated against the illegal encroachers and Case No. T202304680601057 and Case No. T202304680601055 have already been registered and notices have been issued to the alleged encroachers and only after orders are passed, necessary action will be taken against the encroachers.

¶12

He further submits that with regard to gata No. 971 petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code,

¶13

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.

¶14

In light of the above, considering the fact that proceedings in accordance with law i.e. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been initiated against the alleged encroachers, no further directions are required by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India with regard to Gata Nos. 968 & 969 .

¶15

However, the competent authority is directed to expedite the hearing in the aforesaid cases and pass necessary orders expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

Accordingly, With regard to Gata No. 971, petitioner is granted liberty 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.

¶17

With the above observations / directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Ravi/

¶20

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

Sayeed Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayeed Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 8 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

M/S Sardar Motors Civil Lines Faizabad Throu Its Partner Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Anil Kumar Bajpai Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko. and Others

Rajaram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and Others

Premnath Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko.and Ors.

M/S Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes U.P. Lko

Smt. Pusha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others