Disposed¶13

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2025WPIL/374/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Division Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.), Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:21948-DB, PIL No. 374 of 2025 (Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. and 8 Others), decided 18.4.2025. Keywords: gaon sabha land; usar/barren land; gata no.2644 Kha; drainage construction; demarcation; injunction suit; status-quo order by civil court; abadi land; encroachment/unauthorised usurpation; disposal of PIL.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with observations that the drainage construction on the gaon sabha ('usar') land is not to be interfered with, grievances over abadi land are left to the pending civil suit, and no unauthorised usurpation of gaon sabha land will be permitted. ¶13

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21948-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 374 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rahul Yadav

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 8 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Sharma,Uma Kant Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶7

Sri Vivek Kumar Verma, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties no.6 to 8, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Sri Vivek Kumar Verma, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.6 to 8.

¶9

It is not in dispute that gata no.2644 Kha is recorded as 'usar' (barren land). Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State on the basis of instructions has stated that gata no.2644 kha recorded as 'usar' (barren land) for the purposes of its identity became a subject matter of demarcation due to the reason that an injunction suit was filed by some local residents against the construction of drainage over the same. Although an order of status-quo has been passed by the civil court with respect to the abadi area which may have been claimed as appurtenant land but the construction of drainage is strictly maintained on the gaon sabha land recorded as usar (barren).

¶10

The construction of drainage appears to have been initiated after demarcation and identity of the

¶11

said land which is evident from the documents placed on record.

¶12

Thus, the construction of drainage under these circumstances cannot be allowed to be interfered with upon the gaon sabha land and any grievance regarding the construction being made over any part of abadi land as might be the case in the pending suit is open to be adjudicated before the competent civil court by the party aggrieved.

¶13

With these observations, the writ petition filed in public interest is disposed of .

¶14

It is also made clear that no part of the gaon sabha land including the pathway encroached upon, if any, may be allowed to be usurped by any unauthorised person.

¶15

( Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. ) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Shahnaz

¶17

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

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akhilesh Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Jwala Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Devendra Kumar Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 14 Others

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy.Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director New Delhi and Another Vs Pradeep Kumar and 7 Others

U.O.I. Thru. the Chief Post Master General, Lko. and 2 Others Vs Shiv Balak