Mohd. Rashid v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Musafirkhana Distt. Amethi and Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024WRIC/6206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks removal of tin-shed encroachments on demarcated gata land at village Sidhiyawa, District Amethi, alleging revenue officials failed to remove them despite a spot memo. His application to the Tehsildar remains undisposed. Court directed Standing Counsel to seek instructions and listed the matter for 29.07.2024.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd. Rashid vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6206 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd. Rashid Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Musafirkhana Distt. Amethi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipul Tripathi,Piyush Pathak,Vaibhav Prakash Jaiswal

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondents.

¶5

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶6

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opp-Party No.1 to remove the illegal encroachment made by private Opp-Party No.4 to 19 in pursuant to the spot memo dated 31.12.2023 conducted at at Khata No. 300, Gata No. 1182/2514, measuring about 0.0390 hec. & 1195/0.3910 hec. at village Sidhiyawa, Pargana Jagdeeshpur, Tehsil Musafirkhana, District Amethi, contained as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition."

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that in gata no. 1182/2514 measuring area 0.0390 hectare and gata no. 1195 measuring area 0.3910 hectare, demarcation was done and the boundary pillars were erected on 31.12.2003 by the revenue officials along with the police team, however the private respondents' tin shed was not removed only oral instructions were given to them, i.e., respondents nos. 5 to 19 to remove their tin sheds, which they have not done till date.

¶8

The petitioner has moved an application in this regard to the Tehsildar, Musafirkhana, District Amethi, which remains undisposed of, despite the Tehsildar endorsing such application to the revenue officials and the SHO of the Police Station concerned to take necessary action.

¶9

The learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek necessary instructions.

¶10

List/Put up this matter on 29.07.2024, as fresh.

¶11

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Anurag

¶12

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶13

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

Mohd. Rashid v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Musafirkhana Distt. Amethi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd. Rashid v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Musafirkhana Distt. Amethi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anokhi Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Maurya Rajpati Devi @ Rajpati Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 8 Others

Hazratpur Kisan Seva Samiti Thru. Auth. Rep. Paramjit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Ashish Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 3 Others

Sameer Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 5 Others

Shamim Ahmad Alias Shamim Achchan vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs Govt. of India New Delhi and 4 Others