Baldev Prasad Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko and Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024WPIL/647/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public interest litigation concerning land said to be reserved for a primary school and adjacent 'Banjar' land in a Gaon Sabha holding. The court heard counsel, directed the opposite parties to file counter affidavits within three weeks with rejoinder within one week thereafter, and listed the matter for further hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Baldev Prasad Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 647 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Baldev Prasad Maurya

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anam Som Ratna Maurya,Prahlad Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Prashant Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶7

1. Heard Shri Prahlad Maurya, leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6.

¶8

2. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha opposes the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner himself sought to usurp the land of the school and the 'Banjar' land adjacent to it. When he and associates were stopped they have filed this writ petition. Further, he says that the part of the School has been constructed beyond the boundaries of Gata No. 1208 which is reserved for primary school i.e. it has been constructed on 'Banjar' land. The Park is being constructed which shall also be used by students of the primary school for their activities and if part of it is on Gata No. 1208 this by itself would not be a cause for interference because the school is also partly on the 'Banjar' land. This is not a matter where a public interest litigation should be entertained.

¶9

3. Shri Prahlad Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner says that this is factually incorrect.

¶10

4. Let counsel affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within a period of three weeks.

¶11

5. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter.

¶12

6. List thereafter.

¶13

7. All issues are open for consideration on the next date of listing.

¶14

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 2.8.2024/R.K.P.

¶16

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

Baldev Prasad Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Baldev Prasad Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Maurya Vs Chairman U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Lko. and Others

Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences , Lko. Thru. Director vs M/S S.C. Agarwal Purana Qila , Lko. Thru. Proprietor Mr. S.C. Agarwal

Rishidev Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Indraprastha Landmark Flat Owners Association , Lko. Thru. Secy. Shri Shashank Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Executive Director Retail and Sales Indian Oil Co. Ltd. and 2 Others vs M/S Mishra Automobiles Thru. Jagdish Mishra and 2 Others

Lal Mani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others