Disposed

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

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024WPIL/179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that since proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had already been initiated against encroachers, the writ petition seeking directions to remove encroachments on public utility land was disposed of without further specific directions, directing the competent authority only to expedite the pending cases.

What did the court decide?

The competent authority is directed to expedite the hearing of the registered cases and pass necessary orders expeditiously in accordance with law.

Sumit Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17555

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 179 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambika Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶7

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

¶8

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to state authorities to remove the illegal encroachment over the some part of Krishi Yogya Banjar Gata No. 2453 Minjumla measuring area 0.5580 hectare, Gair Mumkin Gata No. 3095 measuring area 0.5340 hectare, which are reserved for public utility land/Gram Sabh situated at Village Peeparpur, Pargana, Asal, Tehsil Amethi, District Amethi.

¶9

It has been submitted that the said land situated at Gata No. 2453 and Gata No. 3095 in the said village is recorded as 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.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions has

¶11

submitted that proceedings under Section 26/67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been initiated against the illegal encroachers and Case No. T202404710501187 (Gram Sabha Vs. Ram Lakhan Kori), Case No. T202404710501188 (Gram Sabha Vs. Ram Abhilakh), Case No. Case No. T202404710501189 (Gram Sabha Vs. Budhi Ram) and Case No. Case No. T202404710501190 (Gram Sabha Vs. Vinod Gupta) 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 Virendra

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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