Dismissed

Dulara v. State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC10 May 2024WPIL/406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An 80-year-old woman filed a PIL claiming encroachment on public land. The court dismissed the petition because she did not sign the petition or affidavit, did not put her thumb impression on the petition, and no proof of prior administrative action was provided.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by Dulara against the State of U.P. regarding encroachment on public land is dismissed.

Dulara vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36248

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 406 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dulara

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home, Lucknow And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar,Krishna Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Krishna Gopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶9

This petition has purportedly been filed in public interest by 'Dulara age about 80 years, W/o late Ram Prasad, R/o Village Jalim Kheda Majra Gujauli Sarvan, District Unnao, stating that the opposite parties no. 5 to 8 have made encroachment on public utility land i.e. khalihan land bearing Gata No. 172 having area 0.0750 hectare and protected land (rasta) bearing Gata No. 151 having area 0.1290 hectare situated in Village Jalim Kheda Majra Gujauli Sarvan, District Unnao.

¶10

The petitioner claims to have given an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for removal of the encroachment but the copy of the application filed along with the writ petition does not bear signature or thumb impression of the petitioner and it does not contain any proof of service of application on the authority. The petitioner has merely put her thumb impression on the vakalatnama executed in favour of her learned counsel and she has not filed this petition herself. The petition and the affidavit in its support have been filed by Puttan Lal aged about 45 years, who is son of the petitioner.

¶11

It is strange that an 80 year's old lady, whose qualification has not been disclosed in the writ petition, claims knowledge of the exact gata number and area of public utility land, which have been encroached by private persons but she has not signed or put her thumb impression on the writ petition or the affidavit filed in its support and the same have been signed by her 45 years old son.

¶12

It appears that the deponent of the affidavit has filed the writ petition with some ulterior motive in the name of her mother, else he could have filed the petition in his own name.

¶13

The Court is seeing a trend in many fold increase in public interest litigations, which are often filed to settle personal scores. Public interest litigations are filed in matters where recourse can be taken by availing remedy provided under the provisions of law, including Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner in filing a writ petition in public interest, without herself taking the responsibility of the averments made therein by signing the affidavit in support of the Public Interest Litigation and without annexing any proof of service of the application for redressal of her grievance on the authority concerned.

¶14

In view of the forgoing discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Pradeep/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dulara v. State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dulara v. State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S A2Z Waste Management (Meerut) Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Yuvraj Sharma Vs Construction and Design Services,U.P. Jal Nigam,Noida Thru. Director/Project Manager and 2 Others

Ankit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Rishabh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

M/S Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad Thru. Auth. Signatory Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vs Amit Saxena

Akbar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another