Disposed

Hariram Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue and 5 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2024WRIC/3666/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction restraining respondents from constructing a road on specific land while an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 regarding demarcation was pending. The court issued notice to a newly impleaded respondent and granted a stay on construction until the next date of listing.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on construction of new road on the petitioner's land till next date of listing.

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

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3666 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Hariram Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

(1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel who appears for the Opposite party nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Shri Mohan Singh, who appears for the Opposite party no.5.

¶6

(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main prayer:-

¶7

"1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties not to construct the road on the land Gata No.1134 area 0.2280 situated at Village Punnpur, Block and Police Station Sangrampur, Tehsil and District Amethi till disposal of the case under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.366 (C) of 2024 [Hariram Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others] contained in Annexure No.6 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."

¶8

(3) Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Gram Pradhan of Village Punnpur, Block and Police Station Sangrampur, Tehsil and District Amethi, by his name in the array of the respondents as Opposite party no.7 during the course of the day.

¶9

(4) Issue notice to the newly impleaded Respondent no.7.

¶10

(5) The petitioner shall take steps by both ways within one week and file affidavit of service within two weeks thereafter.

¶11

(6) List this matter on 09.05.2024, as fresh .

¶12

(7) We have gone through the papers on record and we find that in pursuance of order dated 17.01.2024 passed

¶13

in Writ-C No.366 of 2024 [ Hariram Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others ], the petitioner Hariram had filed an Application under Section 24 before the S.D.M. on which a report regarding demarcation has been submitted to the S.D.M. by the Tehsildar concerned with regard to demarcation of Gata No.1134 admeasuring 0.2280 Hectare. A copy of such report has been filed as Annexure No.8 to the petition.

¶14

(8) The petitioner has submitted his objections to the said report also on 27.03.2024, a copy of which has been filed alongwith the report.

¶15

(9) It is the case of the petitioner that there is already one Khadanja marg running through the land of the petitioner which has been built by the then Gram Sabha / Gram Pradhan on the basis of some consent allegedly given by the father of the petitioner as is mentioned in the report submitted by the Tehsildar to the S.D.M. Now the current Gram Pradhan proposes to take another strip of the petitioner's land on the basis of alleged consent given by the petitioner.

¶16

(10) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has only 0.022 Hectare land and he cannot possibly give any consent for taking another strip the land of the petitioner for making another Rasta when there already exists one Khadanja Rasta of 12 X 3.5 Meters on the petitioner's land. The Tehsil Authorities in collusion with the current Gram Pradhan are harassing the petitioner. The petitioner has already moved a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned against the current Gram Pradhan.

¶17

(11) Till the next date of listing, no construction of new road on the land of the petitioner shall be carried out by the respondents.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 N.PAL

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hariram Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue 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

C/M Munshi Raghunandan Prasad Sardar Patel Mahavidyalaya Thru. Secy. Uma Shankar Verma and Another vs Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar,Co-Operative,Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and 3 Others

Smt. Geeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Deepak vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and Others

M/S R.K. Traders , Ambekdar Nagar Thru. Proprietor Mr. Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

M/S Veer Enterprises Thru. Prop. Shri. Ravi Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Rajat Sahai vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry Finance Income Tax Deptt., New Delhi and Another