Disposed

Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 7 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/793/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed State authorities to expedite and conclude pending proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, regarding illegal encroachment over public land ('Kabristan') Gata No. 459 in Kasimpur, Amethi, for removal of encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude pending cases and remove illegal encroachment over public land expeditiously.

Mohd. Sartaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64260

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 793 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd. Sartaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhanu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Chandra Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5.

¶7

In light of the proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to State respondents to evict the private respondent as well as any other person who has illegally encroached upon the public land being Gata No. 459, area 0.0950 hectares, situated in Village - Kasimpur, Pargana - Rokha, Tehsil - Tiloi, District - Amethi, expeditiously.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that illegal encorachment over the public land has been made by the private respondents existing over Gata No. 459, area 0.0950 hectares, situated in Village - Kasimpur, Pargana - Rokha, Tehsil - Tiloi, District - Amethi, and said land is recorded as "Kabristan" in the revenue records.

¶10

It is further submitted that with regard to aforesaid illegal encorachment over the public land by the private respondents, the petitioner has moved several applications before the authorities concerned, but till date no action has been taken in this regard.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand on the basis of instructions received from Tehsildar, Tiloi, Amethi has submitted that before the Tehsildar four cases under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 being Case Nos. T202204710806063, T202404710808503, T202404710808504 and T202204710808534, pertaining to same land are pending and proceedings are going on. It is submitted that under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 after obtaining report of

¶12

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.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner at this stage submits that the State respondents may be directed to conclude the proceedings of aforesaid cases expeditiously so that illegal encroachment by private respondents over public land may be removed.

¶14

Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition, is disposed of with direction to the authority concerned to proceed to consider and conclude the proceedings of Case Nos. T202204710806063, T202404710808503, T202404710808504 and T202204710808534, pertaining to illegal encroachment over Gaon Sabha land being Gata No. 459, situated in Village - Kasimpur, Pargana - Rokha, Tehsil - Tiloi, District - Amethi, by the private respondents, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 A. Verma

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 7 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

Rajendra Prasad Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Kedar Ram Pno. 853010010 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Rohit Hassa and 2 Others vs Union of India Thru. Ncb, Lucknow

Ram Tej Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secy. Lko. U.P. and 8 Others

Shivanshu Gupta Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Education,Deptt. of Higher Education, Lko. and Another

Vijay Raghav Bhagwan Virajmaan Sri Panch, Ayodhya, Thru. Saravarakar/Mahant Ram Susheel Das Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue , U.P. Govt. Lko. and 4 Others