Dismissed

Bhriagu Nath v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024WPIL/353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a PIL filed regarding the implementation of a Tehsildar order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. After the Standing Counsel submitted that encroachment removal orders were executed and the petitioner's counsel accepted this, the court ruled that the prayer was substantially addressed and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as the prayer of the petitioner was substantially addressed by the submissions made regarding the removal of encroachment.

Bhriagu Nath vs State of Up and 4 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:191151

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 353 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Bhriagu Nath Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aarti Singh,Adarsh Kumar,Anil Kumar,Arvind Kumar Yadav,Ashwini Kumar,Subhash Chandra Yadava

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶7

This Court has passed following order on 04.03.2024 :-

¶8

“1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satyendra Bhusan Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Gaon Sabha.

¶9

The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the implementation of the order dated 3.7.2023 passed by Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In Paragraph No. 9 of the instant public interest litigation, averment has been made that order dated 3.7.2023 has attained finality.

¶10

On the other hand, Mr. Satyendra Bhusan Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent, Gaon Sabha submitted that remedy is provided under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual for the implementation of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, instant public interest litigation is not maintainable.

¶11

In reply, counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot in question is recorded as public utility land, as such, the instant public interest litigation is maintainable.

¶12

Let the notice be issued to respondent no.5 returnable at an early date.

¶13

Steps be take within 10 days.

¶14

Respondent no.5 shall file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.

¶15

List this matter in the additional cause list on 9.5.2024.”

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that orders passed for removal of encroachment have been executed and encroachment has been removed.

¶17

Sri S.C. Yadava, learned counsel for petitioner, at this stage, submits that he has no instructions to dispute above submissions which is based on instructions.

¶18

In view of above, since prayer of petitioner is substantially addressed, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 5.12.2024 N. Sinha

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhriagu Nath v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhriagu Nath v. State of Up and 4 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

Similar cases

Bankelal vs State of Up

Pradeep Kumar Singh and 15 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Genda vs State of Up and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Yadav vs State of Up and 13 Others

Lokesh Kumar vs State of Up and 16 Others

Sanjay Kumar vs State of Up and 4 Others