Allahabad High Court
Indra Pal Singh vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 18 April, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:67215 Court No. - 49 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 363 of 2024 Petitioner :- Indra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurang Kulshreshtha,Prem Sagar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Abhay Kumar Pandey,Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C.,Satya Narayan Yadav Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Prem Sagar Verma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Notice on behalf of the fourth respondent has been accepted by Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava and Sri Abhay Kumar Pandey, who is appearing for Respondent no.5.
2. The present public interest litigation has been preferred seeking a relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the third respondent, Assistant Collector /Tehsildar, Tehsil- Bah, District Agra. to take suitable action to remove the encroachment upon the public utility/ Gram Panchayat land of Gata No.297 (Holi Place), 294M. (Gandhi Park) & 294M. (Barat Ghar) situate in village- Babool, Tehsil- Shikohabad, District- Firozabad under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
3. This Court entertained the writ petition on 27.02.2024 and thereafter pursuant to the receiving instructions, on 18.03.2024, the writ petitioner was directed to examine the instructions submitted by the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.
4. Perusal of the instructions dated 15.03.2024, under the signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Shikohabad, Firozabad shows that in the second page of the instructions, just below the heading of the additional pleas, it has been recited that the Gata no. 297, which was old gata no. 268 referable to the Akar Patra 45, Khata no.579, it was recorded as abadi. With respect to the Fasli Year 1388-1394, Gata No.551, an order was passed by the Pargana Adhikari on 06.04.1983 mentioning therein that the Gata No. 297 Rakba 0.03 decimal (0.012 hectare) was reserved for Holi land. However, due to typographical error at the time of preparation of Khatauni, Gata No.297 Rakba 0.10 decimal was earmarked for Holi land and at the time of presentation of present petition, appropriate remedial action has been taken mentioning therein that the land earmarked for Holi land is 0.03 decimal (0.012 hectare) and the residue land of Rakba 0.07 decimal, i.e. 0.028 hectares should be earmarked for abadi. Consequently, proceedings purported to be under the relevant statutes being Case no.T202401260201541 Gaon Sabha vs. State of U.P. was initiated on 11.03.2024, wherein remedial action has been taken in that regard. Insofar as, Khata no.580, Gata No.294M, Rakba 0.040 hectare is concerned the same is referable to Gandhi Park and Khata No.583, Gata No.294M, Rakba 0.030 is earmarked for Marriage House and according to the instructions, there is no encroachment over the same.
5. It is also being recited in the instructions that as per the bandobast Akar Patra-45, Navin Parti year 1415 Lagan 1420 Fasli Gata No. 294, pursuant to the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jasrana dated 07.02.2013, Gata No.294 Rakba 0.040 Gandhi Park, Gata no.294, Rakba 0.030 abadi, it has been modified and recorded as Barat Ghar.
6. As per the instructions, the Mauja Thanumai, Tehsil Jasrana is a village, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Tehsil Shikohabad. Lastly it has been stated that so far as the land earmarked for Holi land, it has been encroached by Ram Das, i.e. fifth respondent, pursuant whereto proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 being T202401260201587 has been initiated.
7. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent has submitted that already a civil suit is pending so instituted by the fifth respondent and the present writ petition is other than bonafide, as it is on account of vindictive attitude.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, this Court finds that in view of the detailed instructions, a copy of the documents to support the same no fruitful purpose would be served, as the writ petitioner submits that it is virtually a public interest litigation and his only endeavour is to bring to the notice of the authorities to safeguard their own property.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the expectation that the proceedings which is being sought to be initiated and stated to be pending, shall be given a logical end strictly in accordance with law after hearing the respective parties. It is open for the fifth respondent to take legal and factual ground in the pending litigation.
10. A copy of the instructions be served upon learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
11. A copy of the instructions and Khatauni are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A' and 'B' respectively.
Order Date :- 18.4.2024 N.S.Rathour