Disposed¶18

Sarju and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Sitapur and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2026WRIC/243/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 243 of 2026, Sarju & 2 Others v. State of U.P. thru Dist. Magistrate Sitapur & 4 Others (decided March 13, 2026; coram Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Manjive Shukla, J.). Keywords: Gata Nos. 773, 778 & 779; chak-marg; construction/encroachment; demarcation; Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; compensation before District Magistrate; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within one week, authorities directed to act expeditiously thereon; further liberty to apply for compensation before the District Magistrate concerned for any construction/encroachment on the chak-marg. ¶18

Sarju and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Sitapur and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 243 of 2026

Sarju And 2 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Sitapur And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kailash Nath
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶9

Court No. - 3

¶10

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶11

The instructions produced by learned counsel appearing for the State today in Court are taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the instructions.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has specifically submitted, on the basis of the instructions, that the State is not carrying out any construction or encroachment on the Gata belonging to the petitioner being Gata Nos.773, 778 & 779. He also submitted that if an application for demarcation is made by the petitioner, the authority shall act upon the same in accordance with law.

¶14

In light of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to make an appropriate application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. If such an application is made within a period of one week from the date, the authorities concerned are directed to act upon the same expeditiously.

¶15

We also make it clear that in the event any construction/encroachment has been made with regard to the chak-marg on the property of the petitioner, the petitioner may apply for payment of compensation for the same before the District Magistrate concerned in accordance with law.

¶16

WRIC No. 243 of 2026

¶17

¶18

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶20

March 13, 2026

¶21

Ashutosh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarju and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Sitapur and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarju and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Sitapur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Somvanshi Infotech Thru. Legal Representative Vandana Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

Vimla Devi vs Collector/District Magistrate Distt. Bahraich and 4 Others

Ali Abbas vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector/Dist. Magistrate Dist. Ayodhya and 13 Others

Ankul Sethi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Lakhan Lal Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. 4 Others

Sujeet Kumar vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi and 2 Others