Krishan Gopal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2025WRIC/3692/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Playground encroachment; road construction on playground land; District Magistrate Etawah personal affidavit; boundary wall to safeguard playground for students; interim direction restoring/maintaining playground nature; writ petition consigned to records; Allahabad High Court Division Bench (Ashwani Kumar Mishra & Donadi Ramesh, JJ.); WRIT - C No. 3692 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:36366-DB; order dated 12.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition consigned to records with no further proceedings; the earlier direction that no interference be made with the land earmarked as playground, and that its nature shall be restored/maintained, stands recorded. ¶¶19

Krishan Gopal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-authorities are encroaching upon land currently in use as a playground for construction of a road, thereby affecting the students and children of the area. +1 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

Interim direction: no interference will be made with the land earmarked as playground and its nature shall be restored/maintained.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

Final: in view of the respondents' stand (no road proposed; boundary wall only to safeguard the playground for students), the Court found no occasion to proceed further and consigned the writ petition to records.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

Observation that the stand taken by the respondents in the instructions was in apparent contradiction to the photographs annexed along with the instructions.obiter¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. and Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.) in WRIT - C No. 3692 of 2025, order dated 12.3.2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:36366-DB). The petitioner's grievance was that land currently in use as a playground was being encroached upon by the respondent-authorities for construction of a road, likely to affect students and children of the area. On 27.02.2025, instructions from the District Magistrate, Etawah were found to be in apparent contradiction to the photographs annexed (playground dug, wall proposed); the Court called for the District Magistrate's personal affidavit and made it clear that no interference would be made with the land earmarked as playground and its nature shall be restored/maintained. In his personal affidavit, the District Magistrate stated that no road was proposed between the school and the playground, and that the boundary wall was being constructed only to stop use of the playground as passage and to safeguard it for the students of the primary institution. Finding no occasion to proceed further in view of the respondents' stand, the Court consigned the writ petition to records.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36366-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3692 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Krishan Gopal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶6

Following orders were passed on 27.02.2025:

¶7

"Following order was passed on 10th February, 2025:

¶8

Grievance is that land currently in use as playground is being encroached upon by the respondent-authorities for construction of road.

¶9

It is submitted that impugned action is likely to effect the students and children of the area.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed ten days' time to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶11

Post as fresh once again on 27th February, 2025."

¶12

Pursuant to above order, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from the District Magistrate, Etawah, which is taken on record. As per instruction, no road/paveway is being constructed in the play ground and that some equipments for playing of the children alone are being installed.

¶13

However, perusal of page-11 of the instruction clearly goes to show that the play ground has been dug and wall is proposed to be constructed. The stand taken by the respondents in the instructions are in apparent contradiction to the photographs annexed along with the instructions.

¶14

In that view of the matter, we call upon the District Magistrate, Etawah (respondent no.2) to file his personal affidavit by the next date.

¶15

We also make it clear that no interference will be made with the land earmarked as play ground and its nature shall be restored/maintained.

¶16

List this matter again on 4th March, 2025 as fresh."

¶17

District Magistrate, Etawah has filed his personal affidavit clearly stating that no road is proposed to be constructed between the school and the playground. It is submitted that a boundary wall is

¶18

being constructed only to stop use of playground for passage by the persons living in the nearby vicinity. It is also submitted that the purpose for constructing the wall is merely to safeguard the playground for the use of the students of the primary institution and that no road etc. is proposed to be constructed on the land, which is earmarked as playground.

¶19

In view of the stand taken by the respondents, we do not find any occasion to proceed any further in the present writ petition. It is consequently consigned to records.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Noman

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishan Gopal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Gopal v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Varsha Sahani vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Murlidhar @ Murlighar vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

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

Indrajeet Singh vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Gyan Datta Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lal Mohan vs State of U.P. and Another