This PIL sought directions to restore boundary marks removed after they had been erected. The court noted that respondents restored the marks on 12.7.2024, consequently disposing of the writ as the purpose of the litigation was subserved.
The writ petition is disposed of as the boundary marks have been restored.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:112502
Court No. - 50
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1148 of 2024
Petitioner :- Keshav Prasad Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Shri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 10.
Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the notice upon the other unrepresented respondents is being dispensed with.
The present writ PIL has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur, the respondent No. 3 to erect, restore the boundary marks situate between the Gram Panchayat Village Ahmadpur and Gram Panchayat Rajpur (Lallapur) Block Sirkauni, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur in exercise of powers under Section 23 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
A further prayer to direct the State-respondent No. 2 and 3 to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 6 to 14 for damaging/removing the boundary marks of the village be also taken.
From the perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner had approached this Court at earlier point of time by means of PIL No. 1923 of 2023, which PIL was disposed of vide order dated 27.9.2023 on the statement made by learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions that the work of erecting boundary marks between the two Gram Panchayat had already been done by the respondent Authorities on 20.9.2023 and spot memo was also prepared in presence of the villagers and the petitioner.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondents, after the exercise undertaken by the respondents for erecting the boundary marks between the Gram Panchayat as recorded by this Court in the PIL No. 1923 of 2023 on 20.9.2023, again removed the boundary marks and it is under these circumstances the present writ PIL has been filed.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that instructions have been received, which are taken on record.
A perusal of the instructions reveals that on 12.7.2024, the boundary marks erected pursuant to the exercise undertaken on 20.9.2023 have been restored in the presence of the petitioner and other villagers.
In the opinion of the Court, since the boundary marks have now been restored by the respondents on 12.7.2024, the purpose of filing present PIL stands subserved. No further cause of action survives for prosecuting the writ PIL.
Shri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 10 submits that a civil suit for injunction is pending consideration in which the petitioner as well as other private respondents arrayed as party in the present PIL are parties and the Civil Court has granted injunction in favour of the respondent No. 10, which are operating as on date.
Be that as it may, the proceedings before the Civil Court shall be carried to its logical end and the parties may raise their respective claims before the Civil Court. So far as the present proceedings are concerned, the respondent No. 10 if may have any grievance against the boundary marks affixed by the State-respondents, he may resort to appropriate proceedings in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ PIL stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Ravi Prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)
Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the restatement of boundary marks subserves the purpose of the filed public interest litigation.
Whether further writ proceedings are necessary given that boundary marks were restored in the presence of villagers.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Keshav Prasad Yadav
State Of U.P.
Ashutosh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
