Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Ram Jee Lal vs District Magistrate Hathras And 2 ... on 19 September, 2019

Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29078 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Jee Lal
 
Respondent :- District Magistrate Hathras And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Tripathi,Suresh Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
 

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. This is a thoroughly misconceived and ill advised petition. Petitioner alleges that there is encroachment on Chak Road No.1025 and 1027 situated at Mauza Madha Pithu, Tehsil Sadabad, District-Hathras by some private person. The allegation in this regard is made in para 5 and 6 of writ petition. Hence, respondents may be directed to remove illegal possession from the Chak road.

3. There is statutory provisions under Section 26 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ?Code, 2006?), which provides that if there is any obstruction on public road, power has been conferred upon Tehsildar for taking proper action in the matter.

4. Therefore, petitioner has an alternative remedy before respondent 2, which he has not availed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that he has filed an application before Chief Minister and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hathras, which is Annexure-2 to writ petition.

6. On perusal of Annexure-2, it appears that this is a letter to Chief Minister through Sub Divisional Magistrate, who has nothing to do in the matter. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that he has moved application before the Competent Authority is absolutely false. This is nothing but gross abuse of process of law and also amounts to making false statement in Court.

7. Dismissed accordingly with cost Rs.10,000/-.

Order Date :- 19.9.2019 Manish Himwan