Rakesh Kant Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Govt. of U.P. Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh Kant Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Govt. of U.P. Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions: petitioner to implead the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, Barabanki as opposite party no. 7; opposite parties no. 1-5 to file responses to the writ petition and the Commissioner's report; the State authorities and the Nagar Palika Parishad left at liberty to remove the encroachment forthwith, without awaiting further orders, if they agree with the Commissioner's report; case listed for 7th May, 2025, but not under the heading 'fresh case'.

Issue for consideration

Whether the encroachments by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, Barabanki and by the State upon the disputed land (gata nos. 160/161) should be removed, and how the respondents respond to the Commissioner's report. +1 more

Court's answer

Interim operative decision: if the State authorities and the Nagar Palika Parishad are in agreement with the Commissioner's report, they are at liberty, without waiting for any further order, to remove the encroachment; otherwise they shall file their response (including objections, if any, to the report).

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to implead the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, district Barabanki as opposite party no. 7 during the course of the day and serve notice on its Counsel, who is to file an affidavit in response to the writ petition and objections, if any, to the Commissioner's report.

Key takeaways

Opposite parties no. 1 to 5 were directed to file their response to the writ petition and the Commissioner's report accordingly, Learned Standing Counsel already being in possession of the copy of the Commissioner's report.ratio¶19
Caution recorded in the Court's own interim order dated 20.01.2025 (quoted in this judgment): if it is ultimately found that the land encroached upon to raise construction is the petitioner's land or other non-Z.A. land in respect of which the State had no right, the consequences for the State would be the same as for a private person encroaching state land.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order dated 4.4.2025 in WRIT - C No. 425 of 2025 (Rakesh Kant Shukla v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Medical Health, Government of U.P., Lucknow, and others), Division Bench of Hon'ble Rajan Roy and Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench: pursuant to the Court's order dated 20.01.2025 directing demarcation of the boundaries of gata nos. 160 and 161, the Advocate Commissioner's report was taken on record; the report records encroachment by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, Barabanki to the extent of nine meters with inter-locking laid (point 'E' to 'F'), and a further encroachment by the State to the extent of six meters between marks 'D' and 'E'; the petitioner was directed to implead the Nagar Palika Parishad as opposite party no. 7, whose Counsel is to file an affidavit in response to the writ petition and objections, if any, to the report, and opposite parties no. 1 to 5 were likewise directed to respond; in the meantime, if the State authorities and the Nagar Palika Parishad are in agreement with the Commissioner's report, they may remove the encroachment without awaiting further orders; matter listed for 7th May, 2025 (not under the heading 'fresh case').

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 425 of 2025

Petitioner :- Rakesh Kant Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Govt. Of U.P. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Heard.

2. On 20.01.2025, we had passed the order in following terms :-

"1. Learned Standing Counsel has instructions to inform this Court that no construction is being undetaken on gata no. 161, instead it is being undertaken on gata no. 160, which is recorded in the name of Anjum Library. Petitioner's counsel says that this is factually incorrect. He further says that gata no. 160 is also a non-Z.A land.

2. Let the opposite parties get the boundaries of gata no. 160 and gata no. 161 demarcated as per law and submit a report before this Court.

3. Learned Standing Counsel will also inform this Court as to how if gata no. 160 is also a non-Z.A land as claimed by the petitioner the State is undertaking any construction thereon.

4. It is made clear that ultimately if it is found that it is the land of the petitioner or any other non-Z.A land in respect of which the State did not have any right, has been encroached upon to raise any construction, then the consequences would be the same as would have been the case if the private person would have encroached the state land.

5. At this stage, the petitioner's counsel states that Advocate Commissioner be appointed for observing the demarcation exercise and submitting a report to this Court.

6. We accordingly appoint Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma (9415633324) and Shri Dileep Pandey (8707284978), Advocates as Advocate Commissioners, who shall be given notice by the State authorities before undertaking the demarcation and shall allow him to be present and observe the demarcation proceedings freely so that he may prepare the report and submit it to this Court.

7. The Advocate Commissioners shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000 each, per day as fees of the demarcation exercise

excluding conveyance, which shall be paid separately by the petitioner.

8. List this case on 20.02.2025, as fresh."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 20.01.2025, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by us conducted the commission and submitted his report, which is taken on record.

4. As per the report of the Commissioner, which is on record, there is encroachment by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, Barabanki, to the extent of nine meters on which inter-locking has been put. This encroachment is from point 'E' to 'F' in the map annexed with the Commissioner's report. There is further encroachment by the State to the extent of six meters of land, which is existing between the mark 'D' and 'E' in the map annexed with the Commission's report. As per the petitioner, it is required to be removed.

5. Let the petitioner implead the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, district Barabanki, as opposite parties no. 7 during course of the day and serve a notice upon its Counsel, who shall file an affidavit in response to the writ petition and the objection, if any, to the Commissioner’s report, which shall also be provided to him.

Opposite parties no. 1 to 5 shall also file their response accordingly. Learned Standing Counsel is already in possession of the copy of the Commissioner’s report.

7. List this case on 7^th May, 2025 but not under the heading

‘fresh case’.

8. In the meantime, if the State authorities and the Nagar Palika Parishad are in agreement with the Commissioner’s report, then, without waiting for any further order, it shall open for them to remove the encroachment, otherwise, they shall respond as aforesaid.

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Ajit

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