Disposed

Ved Prakash Rai v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024WPIL/1255/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a PIL concerning encroachment over public land. The court directed the Chief Revenue Officer to expeditiously decide pending proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act within three months, after which respondents must take action against the encroachers.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide pending consolidation proceedings within three months; subsequent direction to respondents to act against encrochers.

Ved Prakash Rai vs State of Up and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113440

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1255 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Rai Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Janardan Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Shri R. P. Shukla, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 4.

¶7

Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon private respondent No. 5 is being dispensed with.

¶8

The writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed for a direction to the respondent Authorities to take legal steps against the respondent No. 5 for removal of the encroachment over public utility land bearing Gata No. 408 area 0.0570 hectare situate in village Shahroj, Tehsil Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau recorded as Pond in the revenue records.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel from the record points out that proceedings under Section 27 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act are pending consideration in respect of the aforesaid Gata and in such view of the matter, no action has been taken against the alleged encroachers.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that a direction for expeditious disposal of the proceedings under Section 27 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which are stated to be pending, may be ordered and thereafter proceedings may be initiated against the respondent No. 5 for removal of the alleged encroachment.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present petition pending and the same is disposed of by directing

¶12

the Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau seized with the Case No. 202354155100000092 (Dahichand versus Bukhant) under Section 27 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act to consider and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶13

Once the aforesaid proceedings are brought to its logical end within the time allowed by this Court, the respondents, particularly, the respondent No. 3 shall proceed to take appropriate action against the respondent No. 5 and any other encroachers over the Gata No. 408 area 0.0570 hectare situate in village Shahroj, Tehsil Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau, strictly, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Ravi Prakash

¶15

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ved Prakash Rai v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Prakash Rai v. State of Up and 4 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

Similar cases

Bateshwar Nath Tripathi vs State of Up and 5 Others

Lallan Prasad and 3 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others

Raj Bahadur Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Zahid vs State of Up and 9 Others

Gayasuddeen vs State of Up and 29 Others

Matloob Ullah vs State of Up and 10 Others