Dismissed

Avinash Kumar Mishra v. District Magistrate, Balrampur and Others

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2024WPIL/532/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought eviction of illegal encroachments on public land. The Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding merits, granting liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and directing expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within two weeks; authority to decide expeditiously.

Avinash Kumar Mishra vs District Magistrate… — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46918

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 532 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Avinash Kumar Mishra Respondent :- District Magistrate, Balrampur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4.

¶7

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the State respondents to evict the private persons as well as any other person who has illegally encroached upon the public land being Gata No. 39, area 0.1010 hectares, situated in Village - Phulwaria, Pargana and Tehsil - Balrampur, District - Balrampur, expeditiously.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that illegal encorachment over the public land has been made by private persons existing over 39, area 0.1010 hectares, situated in Village - Phulwaria, Pargana and Tehsil - Balrampur, District - Balrampur, and the said land is recorded as "Naveen Parti" in the revenue record.

¶9

It is further submitted that with regard to aforesaid illegal encorachment over the public land by the private persons, the petitioner has moved several applications before the authorities concerned, but till date no action has been taken in this regard.

¶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. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that certain encroachments over the said land are more than 20 years old.

¶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

¶12

authority.

¶13

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 competent authority within two weeks from today and in case such an application is made within the prescribed period, the said authority is directed to proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶14

It is expected that the Prescribed Authority while proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, shall also consider the rights of the persons who have encroached over the land in question for long time, in terms of provisions of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.7.2024

¶16

A. Verma

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avinash Kumar Mishra v. District Magistrate, Balrampur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Kumar Mishra v. District Magistrate, Balrampur and 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

Hari Om Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Abhishek Kumar @ Ankit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ganga Prasad and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Govt. U.P. Lko. and 17 Others

Achchhe Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Hari Om Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Ashwani Kumar Verma vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another