Rampher @ Ramafere v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024/866/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment; public utility land; Abadi land; gaonsabha land; Gata No. 729Ma; 0.0890 hectare; revenue Village Puraini; Pargana Hisampur; Tehsil Kaisarganj; District Bahraich; respondent No. 6; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; prescribed authority; two weeks; expeditious decision; vacant land; private dispute; notices dispensed with; writ petition disposed of; PIL; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Alok Mathur J.; 2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the prescribed authority within two weeks; the prescribed authority directed to consider and decide such application expeditiously in accordance with law. ¶¶13

Rampher @ Ramafere Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the State respondents ought to be directed to remove the alleged illegal encroachment by respondent No. 6 over the public utility/Abadi land at Gata No. 729Ma, revenue Village Puraini, Tehsil Kaisarganj, District Bahraich. +1 more

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner can demonstrate that the land is gaonsabha land and has been illegally encroached by respondent No. 6, it is open to him to move an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the prescribed authority.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

If such an application is moved within two weeks, the prescribed authority is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.ratio¶¶12
In light of the proposed order, notices to respondent No. 6 were dispensed with.ratio¶¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 7 (Alok Mathur, J.) — PIL No. 866 of 2024 filed by Rampher @ Ramafere alleging that respondent No. 6 had encroached upon public utility land, Gata No. 729Ma measuring 0.0890 hectare, revenue Village Puraini, Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaisarganj, District Bahraich, and praying for a direction to the State respondents to remove the illegal encroachments over the Abadi land; earlier applications to the State authorities had elicited no action. Learned Standing Counsel stated on instructions that the disputed land was vacant, bore no construction, and that the matter appeared to be a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that if the petitioner could demonstrate that the land was gaonsabha land illegally encroached by respondent No. 6, he could move an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the prescribed authority; on such an application being moved within two weeks, the prescribed authority was directed to consider and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law. Notices to respondent No. 6 were dispensed with. Order dated 3.10.2024.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68230

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 866 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rampher @ Ramafere Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Vakar Khan,Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent 1 to 4 and Sri Vikaram Dutt Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 5

¶8

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

¶9

The petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 6 have encroached upon the public utility land situated at Gata No. 729Ma are 0.0890 hectare situated at revenue Village - Puraini, Pargana - Hisampur, Tehsil - Kaisarganj, District - Bahraich.

¶10

It has been submitted that several applications have been given to the State authorities but no action has been taken, accordingly present writ petiton has been filed with praying for issuance of a suitable direction to State respondents to remove illegal encroachments over the Abadi land.

¶11

Learned Standing on the basis of instructions has informed this Court that the disputed land as indicated by the writ petitioner is a vacant land but there seems to be a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and there is no construction over the disputed land.

¶12

Accordingly, in light of the above, in case the petitioner can demonstrate the land is a gaonsabha land and has been illegally encroached by respondent no. 6, it is open for him to mvoe an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the prescribed authority and in case such an application is moved within two weeks from today, the prescribed authority is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

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

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 3.10.2024

¶16

Ravi/

¶17

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

Rampher @ Ramafere v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampher @ Ramafere v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 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

Prahlad Narayan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.of Transport Civil Sectt.andORS.

Saleem Akhtar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Transport Deptt.Lko. and Ors.

Altaful Hasan Vs State of U.P.Thru Its Secy.Deptt.of Transport Lucknow and Ors.

Neelam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Tilak Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Bharat Pradhan Filling Center Macha Thru. Prop. Safiya Khatoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others