Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 437 (ALL)

Umashankar Patel v. State Of U. P.

2024-02-08

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Shekhar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 10, Sri Dilip Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 Gaon Sabha. 2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed for the following relief:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 over the Arazi No. 962 area 0.1380 Hectare and Arazi No. 1009 area 0.0890 Hectare of Gaon Sabha land of Village Hathera, Pargana & Tehsil Madiyahu, District Jaunpur recorded as " Nali Nalkooop" in the revenue records and further to get restored on its original shape. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 to take necessary action on the application/representation of the petitioner/villagers dated 21.07.2023". 3. This Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, the instructions have been placed before this Court which is already on record. Private respondent Nos. 6 to 10 have also filed their counter affidavit. Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha has also placed the instructions dated 04.02.2024 before this Court, which is taken on record. 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that there is no need to file rejoinder affidavit or reply to the facts as mentioned in the instructions filed by the State/Gaon Sabha. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot No. 962 and 1009 are recorded as class 6-1 category plot (Nali Nalkoop) in the revenue record, as such the authority be directed to remove the encroachment made by respondent Nos. 6 to 10 over the plot Nos. 962 and 1009. He further submitted that application has been filed before the authority concerned for removal of the encroachment, but no steps have been taken against private respondent Nos. 6 to 10. 6. Sri Shashi Shekhar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 10 submitted that instant Public Interest Litigation has not been filed in the public interest rather it has been preferred to harass the private respondents. 6 to 10. 6. Sri Shashi Shekhar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 10 submitted that instant Public Interest Litigation has not been filed in the public interest rather it has been preferred to harass the private respondents. He further submitted that the petitioner himself encroached the plots in question, as such the instant Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained. He further placed the copy of the application/complaint made by the private respondents, in order to demonstrate that the petitioner has encroached the plot in question. 7. Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha placed the instructions sent by Gram Pradhan of the village annexing the spot map as well as village map in order to demonstrate that the petitioner has encroached the plots in question resulting into stoppage of the interlocking work in the village in question. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed instant petition for his personal interest as such, the instant Public Interest Litigation is liable to be dismissed with costs against the petitioner. 8. Sri Dilip Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that against the encroachment, which has been found in respect to plot in question, the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been registered as Case No. T202314360605971 Gaon Sabha vs. Raghuraj Bahadur and others. He further submitted that for the flow of water, the underground pipeline has already been set-up in the plots in question which has been reserved for Nali Nalkoop Khata, as such no further action is required in the matter. 9. I have considered the argument advanced by the parties and perused the record. 10. There is no dispute about about the fact that plots in question are reserved as class 6-1 category plot. 11. The instructions sent by the Sub Divisional Officer Mariyahu, District Jaunpur will be relevant for perusal, which is as under:- 12. The instructions sent by the Pradhan of the village stating that petitioner is the only person, who has encroached the plot in question, which is affecting the movement of the villagers of the village. The instructions sent by the Pradhan of the village in question is as under:- 13. The instructions sent by the Pradhan of the village stating that petitioner is the only person, who has encroached the plot in question, which is affecting the movement of the villagers of the village. The instructions sent by the Pradhan of the village in question is as under:- 13. In view of the fact mentioned in the instructions sent by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Gram Pradhan of village and the averment made in the counter affidavit of the private respondents, which have not been rebutted by the petitioner by way of affidavit, no further interference is required in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The instant Public Interest Litigation is hereby dismissed. However, the pending proceeding (Case No. T202314360605971) under Section-67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 in respect to plot in question shall be decided by Tahsildar according to provision contained under U.P. Revenue Code 2006 as well as U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016.