Mohd. Moin Siddqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024WRIC/3040/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 alleging encroachment on a public road in Gonda. Petitioner relies on an Advocate Commissioner report from a dismissed civil suit; Gaon Sabha disputes its binding effect. Counter affidavit and rejoinder time granted; matter listed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd. Moin Siddqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3040 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Moin Siddqui Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aviral Srivastava,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Surya Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the Appellate Order dated 07.03.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Gonda under Section 67(5) of the the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred as Code) in Case No. 2747 of 2023 and also for quashing of impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Tehsildar, Gonda passed under Section 67 of the Code in Case No. 8886 of 2022.

¶6

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed against the material on record without considering the evidence as the petitioner has not made any encroachment on the public road.

¶7

It is further submitted that a suit pertaining to the same property in which an Advocate Commissioner Report was filed, wherein it has been shown that the petitioner is in the possession of the said land and the house is constructed on Gata No. 807 and not on Gata No. 731 which is entered as a public path/road in the Revenue records.

¶8

On the other hand, on the basis of the instructions received, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, Gaon Sabha, has submitted that the Commissioner report in Civil matter is not binding in the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code.

¶9

It is further submitted that the said civil Suit was dismissed in default and not decided on merit hence it is not binding in the proceedings under Section 67 initiated against the petitioner for encroachment of the public utility land.

¶10

Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has produced certain photographs which were relied in the Appellate Order from the perusal of the same, it has come out that the half road is constructed and beyond a certain point a construction of a house is being shown due to which road is lying half constructed.

¶11

It is further informed that the road is an highway connecting districts Gonda, Bahraich & Shravasti and prays

¶12

for some time for filing counter affidavit bringing on record all these documents.

¶13

As prayed, two weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit, a weeks' time is granted learned counsel for petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶14

List thereafter, in top-10 cases.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 DiVYa

¶16

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Moin Siddqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd. Moin Siddqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandhya Singh Vs Mr. Surendra Tiwari, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Basic Education Directorate, Lko.

Jitendra Kumar Vs Board of Revenue Thru. President U.P. , Lucknow and Others

Angad Vs Additional Commissioner, Administration Ii, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Dharmpal

Bhagwan Das Vs D.D.C. Faizabad and 5 Ors.

Gulaba Devi Vs Consolidation Officer Sadar Ii, Pratapgarh and Another