Disposed

Vikash Singh and 19 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024WPIL/263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding alleged illegal encroachment on Sahan and public utility land, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dispensed with notices, denied a substantive direction on merits, and disposed of the petition granting liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Respondent No. 4 directed to decide expeditiously.

Vikash Singh and 19 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:24985

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 263 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vikash Singh And 19 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 5 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4.

¶7

In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondent is dispensed with.

¶8

Petitioners approached this court seeking a direction to State authorities to get conduct an appropriate enquiry regarding the illegal encroachment made by the respondent No. 6 on the Sahan land as well as part of the land of Gata NO. 363Ka/1.1530 situated at Village - Wazirganj (Mahadeva), Tehsil - Tarabganj, District - Gonda and remove the illegal encroachment forthwith.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No. 6 is illegally encroaching upon the Sahan land and land of Gata No. Gata No. 363 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶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 :- 21.3.2024 Ravi/

¶15

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

Vikash Singh and 19 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Singh and 19 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. 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

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

M/S Pratyusha Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mr. Piyush Kumar Mishra Vs Addl. Commissioner,Grade-Ii(Appeal)-Iv, State Tax Lucknow and Another

Mushtar Khan and Others Vs Raj Bahadur Singh and Others

Prashant Kumar Yadav @ Veeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Arun Kumar Dubey @ Arun Kumar Vs U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited Lko. Thru. Branch Manager Distt. Faizabad

Vikash Singh and 19 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others