Disposed

Rampher @ Ramafere v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024WPIL/866/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged alleged encroachment by Respondent No. 6 on land in District Bahraich. Court observed land was vacant with no construction, indicating a private dispute. Petitioner directed to move an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs petitioner to move application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within two weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Rampher @ Ramafere vs State of U.P. Thru… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68230

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 866 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rampher @ Ramafere Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Vakar Khan,Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent 1 to 4 and Sri Vikaram Dutt Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 5

¶8

In light of the proposed order, notices to respondent No. 6 is dispensed with.

¶9

The petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 6 have encroached upon the public utility land situated at Gata No. 729Ma are 0.0890 hectare situated at revenue Village - Puraini, Pargana - Hisampur, Tehsil - Kaisarganj, District - Bahraich.

¶10

It has been submitted that several applications have been given to the State authorities but no action has been taken, accordingly present writ petiton has been filed with praying for issuance of a suitable direction to State respondents to remove illegal encroachments over the Abadi land.

¶11

Learned Standing on the basis of instructions has informed this Court that the disputed land as indicated by the writ petitioner is a vacant land but there seems to be a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and there is no construction over the disputed land.

¶12

Accordingly, in light of the above, in case the petitioner can demonstrate the land is a gaonsabha land and has been illegally encroached by respondent no. 6, it is open for him to mvoe an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the prescribed authority and in case such an application is moved within two weeks from today, the prescribed authority is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

With the above observations / directions, the writ petiton stands disposed of.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 3.10.2024

¶16

Ravi/

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rampher @ Ramafere v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampher @ Ramafere v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 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

Prahlad Narayan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.of Transport Civil Sectt.andORS.

Saleem Akhtar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Transport Deptt.Lko. and Ors.

Altaful Hasan Vs State of U.P.Thru Its Secy.Deptt.of Transport Lucknow and Ors.

Rampher @ Ramafere Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Neelam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Tilak Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others