Disposed

Tularam Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024WPIL/234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged illegal encroachment on public utility land. The court held that an efficacious remedy exists under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and disposed of the petition with liberty to approach revenue authorities.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority.

Tularam Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22260

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 234 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tularam Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faiz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4 and Sri Vikram Dutt Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

¶6

In light of the proposed order, notices to respondent No. 6 is dispensed with.

¶7

Petitioner approached this court seeking a direction to State authorities to remove the illegal encroachment on public utility land i.e. Gata Nos. 432, 452, 453 recorded as Banjar in the revenue extract and gata No. 449 recorded as Khalihan in the revenue extract situated at Village Tehdua Mohini, Tehsil and Distrct - Gonda whcih is recorded as public uitily land in the revenue extracts.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

authority.

¶12

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.

¶13

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 14.3.2024 Ravi/

¶15

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

Tularam Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tularam Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue 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