Disposed

Paras Nath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2024WPIL/377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought removal of encroachment on public land. The court noted that proceedings under the U.P. Z.A.L.R. Act were pending with the Additional District Magistrate. The writ petition was disposed of with an observation directing the ADM to decide the pending case expediently after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Observation that ADM, Pratapgarh shall decide the pending case No.D199802570000012 expeditiously after giving parties an opportunity of hearing.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33883

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 377 of 2024 Petitioner :- Paras Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vinay Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

By means of the instant petition filed in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for removal of depredation/encroachment made by the private respondents in land Gata No.728 situated at Village-Rakhaha, Post-Paik Nagar, Tehsil- Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the private respondent Nos.6 to 11.

¶8

On the basis of written instructions received from S.D.M., Tehsil-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel stated that proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A L.R. Act were initiated in respect of land Gata No.728 measuring 0.003 hectares but the notices were issued against Ram Baksh Singh S/o Motilal Singh(deceased father of respondent Nos.6 to 11). However, the proceedings were terminated and notice issued against him was withdrawn by means of an order dated 28.04.2015 passed by Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh. A Revision No.973 of 2015 was filed against the aforesaid order before Board of Revenue, which was allowed and the order dated 22.1.2015 passed by the Additional Collector, Pratapgarh was set aside and the matter was remanded for being decided afresh. After remand, it is pending before the Additional District Magistrate I^st , Pratapgarh in Case No.D199802570000012.

¶9

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Additional District Magistrate Ist, Pratapgarh shall decide the Case No.D199802570000012 in accordance with law after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of hearing, expeditiously.

¶10

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶11

Order Date :- 1.5.2024 -Amit K-

¶12

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

Paras Nath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Nath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 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

Shana Diagnostic Center,Amethi Thru. Its Owner Shabanam Bano and Another Vs Appropriate Authority/State Appellate Authority, P.C.P.N.D.T Act Thru. Chairman Director and 3 Ors.

Vikramajit Singh Vs Uper Zila Judge Kakch NO.2 Sultanpur and 4 Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Pandey @ Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 8 Others

Baby Tarannum and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Paras Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Sultanpur Vs District Judge Lucknow and Another