Dismissed

Ajay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024WPIL/209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to remove encroachment on village land. The court held that since revenue proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code had concluded in favor of the respondents, no direction could be granted unless said orders were assailed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to resort to proceedings under Section 67 sub-clause 5 of the Code of 2006 if aggrieved by the revenue order.

Ajay Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20213

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 209 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State while notice on behalf of Gram Sabha - respondent No.3 has been accepted by Sri Mohan Singh.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondent No.s 1 and 2 to get removed the encroachment done by opposite party no.4 and other villagers over gata No.349 area 0.822 hectare (new gata No.278 Ka area 0.557 hectare) situated in Village Samada, Pargana Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur which is recorded as pond in the revenue records.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that private respondents have encroached upon gaon sabha land and consequently they are liable to be evicted from the said land. It has further been stated that proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code were initiated for eviction of respondent No.4 and the said proceedings have concluded vide order dated 23.1.2023 passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, First Grade, Tehsil Kadipur whereby the allegations against the private respondent for having encroached upon the gaon sabha land has been found to be false and the notices have been discharged.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner despite the said order dated 23.1.2023 prays that orders for demolition should be passed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶11

Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that after due procedure as prescribed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 notices were issued to the alleged encroachers and after

¶12

considering the response submitted by them finding has been recorded by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kadipur that no encroachment on the said gaon sabha land has been made. He further submits that no appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the order of Prescribed Authority dated 23.1.2023.

¶13

After hearing to the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that on the basis of the allegations with regard to encroachment upon gata No.349 area 0.822 hectare (new gata No.278 Ka area 0.557 hectare) proceedings under Section 67 were initiated and the alleged encroachers have not been found to have encroached on the gaon sabha land. In the present public interest petition the said orders have not been assailed and accordingly considering the existence of the orders where specific finding has been recorded in favour of the alleged encroaches that they have not been found to have encroached upon the gaon sabha land, no direction as sought by the petitioner can be granted by this Court in the present public interest petition. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order he can resort to the proceedings under Section 67 sub clause 5 of the Code of 2006.

¶14

In light of the above, there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 RKM.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur and 3 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

Smt. Krishnawati Vs Collector Gonda and Others

Smt. Parvati Devi Vs Apar District Judge Court No. 8 Raebareli and Others

Vijay Shankar and 7 Ors. Vs District Judge Ambedkar Nagar and 4 Ors.

Rameshwar Prasad Soni Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Supply Sect.and Others

Bhishm Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lok Bhawan,Lko. and 3 Others