Vikas Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Shri Himanshu Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Pradeepta Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶12

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to command the respondents from raising further construction of the water tank in plot no.160स which according to him is a land reserved for cremation.

¶13

Shri Pradeepta Kumar Shahi has obtained instructions and has placed the same before the Court which are taken on record.

¶14

From the instructions, it transpires that part of land of plot no.160स is reserved for cremation i.e. 0.3410 hectares whereas part to the extent of 0.0130 hectares is recorded as manure pit and certain land is recorded as minzumla to the extent of 0.1640 hectares is barren land and 0.1900 hectare land is reserved to the allottees who have been awarded nontransferable lease. A handed sketched map appended along with the instructions also shows that the water tank has also come to be installed in an area which is adjacent to the land reserved for cremation purposes. The concerned therefore to the petitioner is to restore the area of cremation by the Gram Sabha if it has agreed to change the land use.

¶15

Per contra, it is argued by Mr. Pradeepta Kumar Shahi, learned

¶16

WRIC No. 32794 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the land has been utilized in public interest, however is not averse to the argument being advanced at the behest of the petitioner that the land which has stood in the name of cremation and which has got occupied for certain area for installation of water tank, should be restored as a cremation place by acquiring land of the similar measurement in terms of area.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, in our considered view, the water tank has already come up in an area reserved for cremation purposes as a cremation ground but it has been installed for public purpose. The water tank is to be utilized for supply of water both in terms of potable water or may be for agriculture use and, therefore, removal of water tank will not be in public interest.

¶20

However, it is always open for the Gaon Sabha to pass appropriate resolution to reserve similar area of some adjacent land which is already recorded as a manure pit or as a banjar land to be re-assigned as cremation area/ cremation ground.

¶21

The Gaon Sabha shall be passing appropriate resolution in the above regard after considering the relevant provisions of the land record manual regarding change of land use if it wants further to assign a particular land as a cremation ground land. The appropriate resolution shall be adopted by the Gaon Sabha as per law from the production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)

¶24

November 4, 2025 Shiv

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anees Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tanay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ambika Yadav vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and 7 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Ak Construction vs State of Up and 5 Others

Usha Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others