Disposed

Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024WPIL/1187/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL was filed seeking eviction of encroachers from temple land. The Single Judge held eviction lies with revenue, not revenue authorities, directing the District Magistrate to address the grievance and pass orders within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

The District Magistrate, Mirzapur is directed to look into the petitioner's grievance and pass appropriate orders within 45 days.

Babu Ram vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115130

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1187 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Babu Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra Shankar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raghvendra Shankar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents. Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 5, the Land Management Committee concerned.

¶7

Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, notice upon the private respondents no. 6 to 10 is being dispensed with.

¶8

The instant writ PIL has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 3, the Upjiladhikari, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur to evict the respondents no. 5 to 10 from the Rasta and Hata of the Mahavir Mandir .

¶9

This Court vide order dated 05.07.2024 after recording the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner had required learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. Pursuant to the said order, instructions have been received which are taken on record. Perusal of the instructions indicate that the land of Arazi No. 76 having area of 1.377 hectare is recorded as Abadi under category 6(2). Over the said Gata, old temple and Rasta has been constructed which is used by the villagers to visit the temple. It appears that the private respondents no. 6 to 10 have encroached over the aforesaid Rasta which hinders the villagers from visiting the temple. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already approached the District Magistrate, Mirzapur by way of moving representation dated 14.03.2024, however no action has yet been taken by the D.M. Mirzapur. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has been compelled to institute the present PIL.

¶10

Having perused the instructions placed by learned Standing Counsel and taking note of the fact that Arazi no. 76 area 1.377 hectare is an Abadi land, the Court is of the view that proceedings for eviction of the encroachers would not lie within the domain of the revenue authorities. However, the District Magistrate, Mirzapur may look into the grievance of the petitioner which is in the larger public interest of the villagers visiting the temple and the grievance can be redressed.

¶11

In such view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that present writ PIL can be disposed of by requiring the District Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending representation of the petitioner dated 14.03.2024 which may be substantiated further by filing a fresh representation. In the eventuality of the petitioner approaching the District Magistrate, Mirzapur by filing a fresh representation, the District Magistrate, Mirzapur shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within a period of forty five days from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶12

Needless to say, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it shall be open for the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Mirzapur, to pass appropriate orders after visiting the spot, in accordance with law.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ PIL stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.7.2024 Anjali

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and 9 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

Amit and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Shabbir Ahamad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vidya Devi and 7 Others vs Board of Revenue and 3 Others

Brij Kumar vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Mahatam Gupta vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Keshav Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. and 13 Others