Disposed

Kamlesh Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024WPIL/178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this public interest litigation regarding illegal encroachment on public utility land and a primary pathshala, the respondent submitted that proceeding under the U.P. Revenue Code had already been initiated. The court held no further direction was needed but directed expedited disposal of the pending cases.

What did the court decide?

Directed competent authority to expedite hearing and pass necessary orders in pending revenue cases; no further direction needed by this Court.

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17585

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 178 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Nishad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶9

In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with.

¶10

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to state authorities to remove the illegal encroachment over the Gata No. 249 measuring area 1.4180 and Gata No. 247 measuring area 0.2180, which are recorded as public utility land/Charagah and Primary Pathshala situated at Village Sansarpur, Pargana Patti Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶11

It has been submitted that the said land situated at Gata No. 249 and 247 in the said village is recorded as Charagah and Primary Pathshala and are the public utility land and has been illegally encroached by private respondents. It has also been stated that several representations have been made by the petitioner in this regard to the competent authority but no action has been taken by them consequently present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions has

¶13

submitted that proceedings under Section 26/67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been initiated against the illegal encroachers and Case No. T202202570503173 (Gram Sabha Vs. Aglu Ram) and Case No. T20302570503760 (Gram Sabha Vs. Aglu Ram) have already been registered and notices have been issued to the alleged encroachers and only after orders are passed, necessary action will be taken against the encroachers.

¶14

In light of the above, considering the fact that proceedings in accordance with law i.e. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been initiated against the alleged encroachers, no further directions are required by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India.

¶15

However, the competent authority is directed to expedite the hearing in the aforesaid cases and pass necessary orders expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

With the above observations / directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 Virendra

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamlesh Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 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

Maulana Abdul Rab Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Lucknow

Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Food and Civil Supply Lko and Ors.

Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs A.D.O. Panchayat Faizabad and 3 Ors.

M/S Krishangini Enterprises, Lucknow Thru. Proprietors, Sri. Udai Agarwal Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Lucknow and Others

Sumit Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 8 Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others