Disposed

Amreesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024WPIL/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order directing Panchayat Bhawan construction. Court directed authorities to explain why they ignored previous instructions that a specific plot was inappropriate for construction.

What did the court decide?

Directs S.D.M., Mankapur, Gonda to explain why previous instructions were ignored in the impugned order; requires filing of affidavit within two weeks.

Amreesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 132 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Amreesh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner by means of present writ petition has challenged the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by S.D.M., Mankapur, District Gonda whereby rejecting the representation made by the petitioner with regard to construction of panchayat bhawan which should not be constructed on Gata No. 191K/0.7160 Hectare situated Village- Parsa Tappakote, Tehsil - Mankapur District – Gonda.

¶8

In this regard a writ petition was previously filed by the petitioner being Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 286/2023 (Amresh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) where the said petition was disposed of after recording the instructions received by learned Standing Counsel which are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶9

"As per the aforesaid instructions, Tehsildar, Mankapur has categorically stated that construction of Punchayat Bhawan on Gata No.191-Ka situated at Village- Parsa Tappakote is not appropriate inasmuch as this is another revenue village and construction thereof should have been done at Gata No.114 situated at Village- Pipra Tappakote."

¶10

By means of the impugned order, the panchayat bhawan has been directed to be constructed on Gata No. 191K. It seems that on the previous occasion, this Court was categorically informed that Gata No. 191K is not appropriate as this is another revenue village and construction thereof should have been done at Gata No. 114 situated at Village- Pipra Tappakote It seems that on two different occasions, two separate instructions have been given to this Court which are totally contrary to each other. The authorities are not expected to provide such contrary information as on the basis of their instructions, the writ petitions are decided and valuable rights of the parties are also decided.

¶11

Accordingly, let the S.D.M., Mankapur, District Gonda shall explain as to why on the previous occasion this Court was informed that Gata No. 191Ka is not appropriate for construction of the panchayat bhawan and while passing the order dated 04.09.2023 he has totally overlooked the said instruction and rejected the representation of the petitioner upholding the order for construction of panchayat bhawan on Gata No. 191K.

¶12

Let the affidavit be filed within next two weeks.

¶13

List this case on 06.03.2024 in top ten cases.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 19.2.2024

¶16

Ravi/

¶17

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

Amreesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amreesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 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

Amreesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others

Amreesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others

Anand Kumar Singh in W.P. No. 17526 M/B 2020 Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Home Lko. and Ors.

Amreesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others

M/S Rama Dairy Products Limited Thru Authorized Person B.K. Pathak vs U.P. Pollution Control Board Lucknow Thru Member Secy.

S. Vignesh Shishir vs Sri Rahul Gandhi and 13 Others