SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(All) 3145

P.K.S.BAGHEL, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
PREM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Arvind Upadhyay for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Simple prayer made in the this public interest litigation is to direct respondents No. 1 to 3, i.e. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, U.P., Lucknow, Collector/District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, district Azamgarh to constitute a Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh for inquiring into illegal encroachments and illegal occupation of respondents No. 5 to 10 over plot No. 304, which is claimed to be a public pond, situated in Village Telhua Chakwalli, Pargana Chiraiyakot, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh and to get the land vacated from such illegal encroachments.

3. After the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1123 followed by some other judgments, upon directions of this Court, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow has issued a circular dated 4th October, 2012. Para-1 of that circular simply refers to certain directions of this Court in a writ petition bearing number 6472 (M/B) of 2012 (Om Prakash Ve









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top