Dismissed

Mahesh Datt Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024WRIC/1128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders rejecting an appeal against eviction and penalty for land encroachment. The Court held that the petitioner had encroached and was ineligible for alternative land allotment under Section 122-C as he possessed other land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the eviction and penalty orders was dismissed.

Mahesh Datt Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14087

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1128 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahesh Datt Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dev Prakash Mishra, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1, 2 and 3.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich whereby it is rejected the appeal of the petitioner and also under challenge is the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Tehsildar. The proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner was under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶8

By means of the order dated 17.11.2023, it was found that the petitioner had encroached upon plot bearing No.380 (M) which is recorded as Navin Parti. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was allotted to the petitioner as he was landless labour and in the aforesaid circumstances it is not correct to state that the petitioner had encroached upon the said land. The order passed by the Tehsildar dated 25.03.2019 came to be assailed in appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and the Appellate Authority also has affirmed findings returned by the Tehsildar in its order. The petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises of Plot No.380 (M) measuring 0.004 hectares and a sum of Rs.2180/has been imposed as penalty alongwith Rs.7.50 as recovery charge. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant two orders have been challenged.

¶9

Submission of the learned counsel for the

¶10

petitioner is that even if at all the petitioner is directed to vacate yet he may be considered as landless labourer and some other land may be allotted in favour of the petitioner.

¶11

It is in this view of the matter, the Court had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter. Learned Standing Counsel has provided the instructions under the signature of the Tehsildar Payagpur, District Bahraich dated 15.02.2024 wherein it is indicated that the petitioner Mahesh Dutt, son of Ram Chitwan, resident of Gram Jalalpur, Pargana Ekauna, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich has ample land and he is the recorded tenure holder as Bhumidhar in respect of Plots no.306 and 414 (M). It is thus submitted that since the petitioner is already possessing land, hence he cannot be treated as a landless labourer as provided under Section 122-C of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. In the aforesaid circumstances, he does not fall within the preferential category, accordingly no land can be allotted to the petitioner.

¶12

Having taken note of the aforesaid and considering the fact that it is not disputed that the petitioner has encroached upon the Plot No.380 (M) measuring 0.004 hectares, hence the orders passed by the Tehsildar as well as the District Magistrate in exercise of power cannot be faulted.

¶13

In so far as the contention regarding allotment of alternate land is concerned, this also cannot be done in light of the report submitted by the Tehsildar at is also not disputed by the petitioner that he does not have the said land which have been indicated.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.2.2024 ank

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahesh Datt Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Datt Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow 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

Smt. Maya Devi and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Court 13 Barabanki and 3 Others

Raees Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Jhinka Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Mahesh Datt Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ram Shanker Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Vidya Singh Vs Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others