Disposed

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024WPIL/1356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL seeking removal of illegal encroachment, holding that the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of revenue orders. The petitioner was directed to file an application under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual for enforcement within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file application under para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual within two weeks for execution of eviction order.

Rajesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:133646

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1356 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Kumar Tiwari,Prem Narain Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Mohit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha respondent no. 4.

¶7

The present writ PIL has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to remove the illegal encroachment over Arazi No. 82, area 0.1700 Hectare, recorded as Bhita, situate in village-Ibrahimpur, Post Mahrajganj, Tehsil-Badlapur, District-Jaunpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under Section 122 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, were initiated against the encroacher, respondent no. 3, which culminated in an order directing for his eviction. However, a recall application was filed which stand rejected vide order dated 14.08.2024. He further submits that now there is no impediment in enforcing the order, passed under Section 122 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, against the respondent no. 3.

¶9

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the writ PIL is not maintainable for execution of the orders passed by the Revenue Court in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Manbhavati vs. State of U.P. and others; 2020 1 AWC 789A as well as in Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. and 6 others) .

¶10

In the opinion of the Court the writ petition can be disposed of by requiring the petitioner to file an application under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual empowers implementation of the orders passed under Chapter IV. The relevant Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual is being reproduced hereunder:-

¶11

"460. Execution of decree and order- (1) The decree or order passed under the Code or the Rules framed under the Code shall, mutatis mutandis, be executed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V.

¶12

(2) The Assistant Collector/Tehsildar passing the order for eviction or recovery of any amount of damages or compensation under the provisions of Section 67 of the Code shall get the order executed and in execution of the order he shall, mutatis mutandis, follow the procedure laid down in paragraphs 137 and 138."

¶13

Accordingly, the present writ PIL is disposed of by requiring the petitioner to file an application invoking para 460 of the Revenue Court Manual within two weeks from today. In the eventuality of such an application being filed, it is expected that the authority concerned shall look into the application and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within next one month.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Deepak/

¶15

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahajan vs Board of Revenue Up at Allahabad and 2 Others

Indrajeet Yadav vs State of Up and 7 Others

Dinesh Soni vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Om Nath vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Dharemendra Kumar Bind vs State of Up and 6 Others