Dismissed

Shiv Raj Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024WRIB/1124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an individual petitioner seeking to quash an order rejecting his representation regarding land consolidation. The Court held that the petitioner failed to plead the extent of his land holding or demonstrate how he would be aggrieved, moving only in a personal capacity. Relying on a Division Bench decision, the Court found the petition not to be a publi

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed entirely.

Shiv Raj Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78266

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1124 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shiv Raj Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Durga Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief:-

¶8

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 as contained in Letter No.3086/G15/2016-17 (Cha.Pra.) dated 24.06.2024 passed by opp. party no.2 i.e. Consolidation Commissioner U.P. Lucknow rejecting the representation dated 02.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner (the copy of the which has been provided through Settlement Officer of Consolidation Lucknow on 27.06.2024) as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition".

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the village in question was put under the consolidation operations which came to de-notified in the year 1960.

¶10

It is urged that once again a proposal was sent for notifying the village under consolidation operations on 12.02.2015. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that in the year 2019, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition bearing No.30997 (Consolidation) of 2019 which was connected with another Petition filed by one Purnmasi Deen bearing Writ Petition No.9732 (Consolidation) of 2021 directing the Director/Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P., to pass appropriate orders on the report submitted by the Committee constituted in accordance with law within four weeks.

¶11

It is urged that though there was a recommendation for denotifying the village. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the present petitioner once again filed WRIT-B No.36 of 2024 which came to be dismissed, however, in the said order dated 12.01.2024, it was clearly provided that in case if the petitioner

¶12

moved a representation to the competent authority indicating whether any right is vested with the petitioner then the same shall be considered.

¶13

It is urged that in pursuance thereof, the representation has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 24.06.2024.

¶14

The Court had put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the extent of land holding of the petitioner in the village in question to which, he candidly submits that the petitioner is not aware nor the same has been pleaded in the pleadings. Since, the earlier petition was dismissed specifically pointing out to the petitioner that he may make a representation providing that he has any right and the said representation came to be rejected, yet the petitioner has not indicated in the petition as to the extent of land holding and how the petitioner would suffer and as he has moved the Court in his personal capacity and is not in the nature of public interest espousing the case of the villagers, if at all, they are aggrieved, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.

¶15

Considering overall the scenario as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Runup Gramodyog Evam Sewa Sansthan thorugh its President v. State of U.P. and others, Public Interest Limitation (PIL) No.2486 of 2015 decided on 23.03.2022 , this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Rakesh/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Raj Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Raj Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jkm Infra Projects Limited, through its Authorized Representative, Sri Abhishek Kumar Jha vs Superintending Engineer, Indo Nepal Border Circle, U.P. Public Welfare Deptt. Barabanki and Others

Anshika Bajpai vs Akhilesh Tiwari

National Fertilizers Limited, Lko. Thru. Its State Manager (Bihar) vs Dilip Kumar Shrivastava

Priya Kant @ Priya Kant Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Shiv Raj Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Momina Vs the Learned Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Patti, Pratapgarh and Others