Dismissed¶4

Raghuveer Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2025WPIL/1011/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 17; PIL No. 1011 of 2025; Raghuveer Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. & 6 Others; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; decided October 7, 2025; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of mandamus; removal of encroachment from navin parati and banjar bhumi (barren land); requirement of petitioner's legal right for mandamus; petition dismissed as not pressed; no merits adjudicated; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

For a writ of mandamus the petitioner must have a legal right whose violation is apparent; the Court observed that no such right appeared from the case, upon which the petitioner's counsel stated that he did not wish to press the writ petition. ¶3

Raghuveer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1011 of 2025

Raghuveer Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 6 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hemant Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Jitendra Kumar Singh, Pradeep Kumar Shukla

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶11

यािचकाकतार् के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता श्री हेमन्त कुमार पांडेय, िवद्वान अपर मुख्य स्थायी अिधवक्ता श्री पंकज श्रीवास्तव, िवपक्षी संख्या 2-राज्य पिरवहन िनगम के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता श्री प्रदीप कुमार शुक्ला तथा िवपक्षी संख्या 7-नगर पंचायत पाली, जनपद हरदोई के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता श्री िजतेन्द्र कुमार िसह, को सुना तथा पत्रावली का अवलोकन िकया।

¶12

भारतीय संिवधान के अनुच्छेद 226 के अन्तगर्त प्रस्तुत इस िरट यािचका द्वारा यािचकाकतार् ने िवपक्षीगण को नवीन परती तथा बंजर भूिम से किथत अितक्रमण हटाए जाने का परमादेश िनगर्त करने का अनुरोध िकया है।

¶13

जब न्यायालय ने यािचकाकतार् के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता से यह प्रश्न पूछा िक परमादेश की िरट िनगर्त करने के िलए यह आवश्यक है िक यािचकाकतार् का कोई िविधक अिधकार हो, िजसका उल्लंघन हुआ हो जो िक इस प्रकरण से प्रतीत नहीं हो रहा है तो यािचकाकतार् के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता ने कहा िक वह इस यािचका पर बल नहीं देना चाहते हैं।

¶14

तदनुसार, यािचका बल न िदए जाने के आधार पर िनरस्त की जाती है।

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶16

October 7, 2025 Himanshu

¶17

Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raghuveer Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Yadav Vs U.O.I Thru. Inspector Cbn Lko.

Raviprakash Trivedi @ Gopal Trivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Monika Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Arya Ram Rati Devi Pharmacy College Azamgarh Thru. Its Manager Satish Kumar and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy.. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Kunal Karda Vs the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lko. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 12 Others