Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 20 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90717 Court No. - 49 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2761 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for following relief:-
"1. To issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondent No. 3 (Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, district Ghazipur) or to any other Competent Authority to ensure the complete execution of the Order dated 26/02/2018 Passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure No 2 to this PIL) Passed in Case No. 2322 of 2017 (Gaon Sabha Vs. Rajjan Yadav) "Computerized Case No. T-2017142960102322" Under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 Mauja Peethapur, Pargana and Tehsil Ghazipur, district Ghazipur and to get Removal of illegal encroachment of Respondent No. 5 from the disputed land being Plot No. 230 Area 0.013 hectare earmarked as "Bheeta" sitauted at Village Peethapur Pargana and Tehsil Ghazipur, district Ghazipur expeditiously, within a short period so stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. So that Justice may be done with the Public at large.
2. To issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondent No. 3 (Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, district Ghazipur) to decide the Application of Petitioner dated 13/07/2023 (Annexure No. 3 to this PIL) pending before it expeditiously, within a short period so stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. So that Justice may be done with Petitioner and other Public at large."
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite orders being passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the appeal filed by the respondent has been dismissed, the encroachment has not been removed.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel for the State that the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders passed by the Revenue Court in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Manbhavati Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 1 AWC 789A and Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. and 6 others).
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for redressal of his grievance.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)