Disposed¶12

Yogendra Gaud v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jan 2025WRIC/764/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery notice; Tehsildar Nichlaul, District Maharajganj; illegal encroachment; U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006, Section 67 (1) / Rule 66; maintainability of writ petition at preliminary stage; reply within two weeks; decision by Tehsildar within three months; Rs. 10,29,000/-; Yogendra Gaud v. State of U.P.; writ disposed of; 2025:AHC:11719; Allahabad High Court; Brij Raj Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

No adjudication on the merits; the petitioner is to file his reply to the recovery notice within two weeks, and such reply shall be decided by the Tehsildar concerned within three months thereafter. ¶12

Yogendra Gaud vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No adjudication on the merits; the petitioner is to file his reply to the recovery notice within two weeks, and such reply shall be decided by the Tehsildar concerned within three months thereafter.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the recovery notice dated 05.11.2024 issued by the Tehsildar, Nichlaul (District Maharajganj) for Rs. 10,29,000/- for an alleged illegal encroachment said to fall under Section 67 (1)/Rule 66 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 was maintainable at that stage, or whether the petitioner should instead file a response before the concerned court.

¶9

Court's answer

Noting that the petitioner had received the notice and undertook to reply within two weeks, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing that once the petitioner files his reply within that period, it shall be decided by the Tehsildar concerned within three months thereafter.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Writ-C No. 764 of 2025 (Brij Raj Singh, J.; Order dated 23.01.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:11719): Yogendra Gaud v. State of U.P. and 7 Others. The writ petition challenged a recovery notice dated 05.11.2024 issued by the Tehsildar, Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, demanding Rs. 10,29,000/- for an alleged illegal encroachment stated to fall under Section 67 (1)/Rule 66 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. Learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the notice pertained to illegal encroachment and that the petition was not maintainable at that stage, the petitioner being advised to approach the concerned court and file his response. On the petitioner's admission that he had received the notice and his undertaking to reply within two weeks, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the reply, once filed within that period, be decided by the Tehsildar concerned within three months thereafter. No precedent was cited; the merits of the recovery demand were not adjudicated.

Yogendra Gaud v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Gaud v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

X Victim of Case Crime No. 126/2016 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Amarnath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Sandeep Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shirish Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vinai Kumar Singh and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home /Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suhel vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and 4 Others