Dismissed

Raj Kishor Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024WPIL/224/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a PIL seeking removal of illegal encroachments on public land in Raebareli. Court dispensed with notices to private respondents and disposed of the petition, granting liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 67 of UP Revenue Code, 2006.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; respondent authority directed to decide expeditiously.

Raj Kishor Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22245

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 224 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Kishor Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit,Ram Vishal Tripathi,Siddhartha Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4

¶8

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

¶9

Petitioner approached this court seeking a direction to State authorities to ensure the removal of illegal encroachment of private respondent No. 6 upon gata No. 134 measuring area 0.1300 hectare recorded as pond in the revenue records, gata No. 132 measuring area 0.0950 hectare recorded as Khalihan, gata No. 136 measuring area 0.1010 hectare recorded as Rasta gata No. 655 measuring area 0.0630 hectare recorded as Mela Ground, gata No. 124 measuring area 0.0980 hectare recorded as Play Ground, gata No. 133 & 135 recorded as Banjar, gata No. 139 recorded as Naveen Parti in the revenue records situated in village Hamirmau, Pargana & Tehsil Dalmau, District Raebareli and also gata No. 1787 recorded as Public Path in the revenue records situated in gram sabha Dhoota,m Tehsil Unchahar, District Raebareli.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No. 6 s along with other villagers are illegally encroaching upon the land of aforesaid gatas situated at aforesaid village despite the fact that the same is public utility land. 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.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where after obtaining report of Revenue Inspector and issuing notices to the alleged encroachers,

¶12

effective orders for removal of the alleged encroachments as well as levy of penalty can be passed in case the allegations are found correct.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner at this stage submits that petitioner may be given liberty to move an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority.

¶14

Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition, is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the respondent No. 4 and in case such an application is made within two weeks from today, respondent No. 4 is directed to proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 14.3.2024 Ravi/

¶17

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

Raj Kishor Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishor Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. 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

Ram Sajiwan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Transport Lucknow and Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Smt. Indu Pratha Kumari

Ram Manohar Singh Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and 5 Others

Amar Jeet Kaur Vs Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Lucknow Division,Lko. and 3 Others

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-Ii,M.v.v.N.L., Raebareli and Another Vs Krishna Bahadur Singh

Raj Kishor Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others