Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 260 (ALL)

Umesh Kumar Sindhi v. State of U. P.

2023-01-25

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2023
JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. Heard Mr. Kshitij Shailendra, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents Mr. Azad Rai, Counsel for respondent No.3-Gram Sabha and Mr. Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, Counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. 2. The instant petition has been filed for mandamus commanding the Sub-Divisional Officer /Competent Authority, Karchhana, Prayagraj-respondent No.2 to decide the applications dated 16.04.2022, 04.6.2022, 18.06.2022, 21.06.2022 and 02.07.2022 filed by the petitioner to ensure compliance of the order dated 10.08.2015 within stipulated period. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a case bearing Case No.720140203059322 of 2014 under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (Ramesh Chandra Singh and others v. Gram Sabha) has been filed by Co-sherers of plot No.235 and on the basis of report of revenue authorities, the final order was passed on 10.08.2015 to demarcate the plot in question. It is further submitted that order dated 10.08.2015 was implemented and boundaries of the land in dispute were demarcated as well as marked by stone marking in the presence of the parties. He also submitted that successors of Ramesh Chandra and other co-sharers have dismantled the stone markings and demolished the boundary wall, therefore, petitioner being owner of plot No.250 filed various applications for implantation of the order dated 10.08.2015 passed in respect to plot No.235. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the provisions contained under Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which are as follows: "20. Fixation and demarcation of boundaries. - (1) Boundaries of all villages in the State and of all survey numbers in a village shall be fixed and demarcated by boundary marks. (2) The boundary marks shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this Chapter, be of such specifications and shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as may be prescribed. 21 Obligation regarding maintenance and repair of boundary marks.- (1) Every tenure-holder shall be responsible to maintain and repair at his cost the boundary marks lawfully erected in his holding or on the boundary thereof. (2) The Gram Panchayat shall be responsible to maintain and repair at its cost the boundary marks, other than those mentioned in sub-section (1), lawfully erected in the villages situate within its jurisdiction. 22. Destruction etc. of boundary marks. (2) The Gram Panchayat shall be responsible to maintain and repair at its cost the boundary marks, other than those mentioned in sub-section (1), lawfully erected in the villages situate within its jurisdiction. 22. Destruction etc. of boundary marks. - (1) If any boundary mark lawfully erected in a Lekhpal circle is destroyed, removed or damaged, then the concerned Lekhpal shall be bound promptly to report the matter to the Naib Tahsildar. (2) The Naib Tahsildar shall make an inquiry in respect of such report and shall submit his recommendation to the Sub-Divisional Officer. 23 Power to require erection, repair or renewal of boundary marks. - (1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, on receipt of the recommendations of the Naib Tahsildar under section 22, or otherwise, require a Gram Panchayat in relation to a village and a tenure holder in relation to his holding, to erect or restore proper boundary marks or to repair or replace the same in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Where the Gram Panchayat or a tenure holder fails to erect, restore, repair or replace the boundary marks as required under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer may cause such boundary marks to be erected, restored, repaired or replaced, as the case may be and recover the cost thereof from such Gram Panchayat or the tenure holder in the manner prescribed." 4. He further submitted that in view of the provisions contained under Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, petitioner' applications be decided expeditiously. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Gireesh Chand Tiwari, Counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 submitted that application filed by the petitioner are not maintainable as petitioner has no concern with plot No.235 and no interference is required in the matter. 6. In reply Counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-sharer of plot No.235 are trying to encroach the petitioner's plot No.250 by removing boundary marks of their plot No.235 which was fixed on the basis of final order dated 10.08.2015 under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that case under Section 41 of U.P. Land Revenue Act has been filed by co-sharer of plot No.235, in which on report of revenue authorities Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the final order dated 10.08.2015 for their demarcation, when the co-sharers have demolished the boundary wall then petitioner filed applications for restoring the boundary marks of plot No.235, which are pending before the respondent No.2. 9. Since petitioner's applications are pending for consideration before respondent No.2, interest of justice requires that the petitioner's claim/application for erection/repair/renewal of boundary marks be decided expeditiously in view of the provisions contained under Section 22/23 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the instant writ petition is finally disposed of with direction that petitioner shall file fresh application under Section 22/23 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the respondent No.2 along with certified copy of this order within three weeks It is further directed that respondent No.2 shall decide the petitioner's application under Section 22/23 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on merit within a period of two months from the date of filing of the application after affording opportunity of hearing to the parries.