Amreesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2025WPIL/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Panchayat Bhawan construction; Gram Panchayat feasibility of land; Gaon Sabha land; Gata No. 114; Gata No. 191(ka) measuring 0.7610 hectares; Village Pipra Tappa Kot; Village Parsa Tappa Kot; Pargana Babhni Payar; Tehsil Mankapur; District Gonda; PIL No. 132 of 2024; PIL No. 142 of 2025; writ petitions consigned to record; no interference for minor violation; Neutral Citations 2025:AHC-LKO:18933-DB and 2025:AHC-LKO:18934-DB; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Division Bench of Attau Rahman Masoodi and Rajeev Singh, JJ.; Order dated 04.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; both writ petitions consigned to record, with the expectation that the already-constructed Panchayat Bhawan on Gata No. 191(ka) be made functional for all purposes. ¶¶18

Amreesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; both writ petitions consigned to record, with the expectation that the already-constructed Panchayat Bhawan on Gata No. 191(ka) be made functional for all purposes.

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Common question arising in both writ petitions regarding the construction of Panchayat Bhawan for villages served by a common Gram Panchayat. +2 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

It is for the Gram Panchayat to examine the feasibility of the land that may be utilised for construction of a Panchayat Bhawan.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

This Court, in absence of any valid grievance, would not enter into the dispute over the choice of land for the Panchayat Bhawan.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The Panchayat Bhawan has already been constructed upon Gata No. 191(ka); the Court declined to alter the existing position on account of any minor violation complained of, since any impediment caused by the pendency of these writ petitions would serve no good cause. (Fact of construction stated on instructions of learned counsel for the State.)ratio¶¶17
The Panchayat Bhawan is expected to be made functional for all purposes, and on what was recorded both writ petitions were consigned to record.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Division Bench of Attau Rahman Masoodi and Rajeev Singh, JJ.; Neutral Citations 2025:AHC-LKO:18933-DB and 2025:AHC-LKO:18934-DB; Order dated 04.04.2025). Two public interest writ petitions — PIL No. 132 of 2024 (Amreesh v. State of U.P.) and PIL No. 142 of 2025 (Sajjad Husain Taj Mohammad Shaikh and another v. State of U.P.) — raised a common question on the construction of a Panchayat Bhawan for villages having a common Gram Panchayat in Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda: one sought construction over Gaon Sabha land Gata No. 114 (Village Pipra Tappa Kot), the other a direction to construct upon Gata No. 191(ka) (Village Parsa Tappa Kot, Pargana Babhni Payar). Learned counsel for the State informed the Court that the Panchayat Bhawan had been constructed upon Gata No. 191(ka) measuring 0.7610 hectares, while Gata No. 114, lying near an educational institution, was dimensionally unsuitable and might in future be required for educational activities. Holding that feasibility of the land is a matter for the Gram Panchayat and that the Court would not enter such a dispute in absence of any valid grievance, and noting the completed construction, the Court declined to alter the position for any minor violation and consigned both writ petitions to record, expecting the Panchayat Bhawan to be made functional for all purposes.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18933-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 132 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Amreesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suneel Kumar Mishra,Vipin Kumar Mishra

¶5

and

¶6

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18934-DB

¶7

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 142 of 2025

¶8

Petitioner :- Sajjad Husain Taj Mohammad Shaikh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Mishra,Vipin Kumar Mishra

¶9

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶10

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶11

1. These two writ petitions involve a common question regarding the construction of Panchayat Bhawan. It appears that Writ Petition No. 132 of 2024 filed in Public Interest seeks the construction of Panchayat Bhawan over Gata No. 114 situated in Village- Pipra Tappa Kot, Tehsil- Mankapur, District- Gonda, whereas Writ Petition No. 142 of 2025 filed in Public Interest seeks a direction against the opposite parties to construct the Panchayat Bhawan upon Gata No. 191(ka) situated in VillageParsa Tappa Kot, Pargana Babhni Payar, Tehsil- Mankapur, District- Gonda.

¶12

The record of both the writ petitions is before us.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the State has stated that as per the instructions received, the Panchayat Bhawan in the villages in

¶14

question having a common Gram Panchayat has been constructed upon Gata No. 191(ka) measuring 0.7610 hectares.

¶15

It is further informed that Gaon Sabha land, i.e., Gata No. 114 is near to the Educational Institution and as per the dimensions available, the same was not found suitable for the construction of a Panchayat Bhawan. It is also submitted that Gaon Sabha land, i.e., Gata No. 114, in future, may also be required for some educational activities, therefore, the same was not found appropriate for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan.

¶16

3. Be that as it may, it is for the Gram Panchayat to look into the feasibility of the land, which may be utilized for the construction of a Panchayat Bhawan and this Court, in absence of any valid grievance, would not enter into such a dispute.

¶17

4. We are also informed that the Panchayat Bhawan has already been constructed upon Gata No. 191(ka) and that being so, this Court, at this stage, may not alter the position for any minor violation, as may have been complained of. The Panchayat Bhawan constructed by the authorities is bound to be utilized for achieving the requisite objects and any impediment on account of the pendency of the present writ petitions would not serve any good cause.

¶18

5. The Panchayat Bhawan is expected to be made functional for all purposes and for what has been recorded above, both the writ petitions are consigned to record.

¶19

[Rajeev Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Arpan

¶21

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

Amreesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amreesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bal Krishna Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj and 5 Others

Smt.Reema Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 10 Others

Avnish Kumar Yadav Vs U.P. Pollution Control Board Thru. Member Secretary, Lko and 4 Others

Banda Development Authority , Banda, Thru. Its Secy. Vs Anil Kumar Gangwar and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 10 Others

Sunil Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 10 Others