Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Yashwant Varma, J.
Rampati - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And 3 Others - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 62841 of 2015
Decided On : 17-11-2015
Public Interest Litigation - Encroachment on Public Utility Land - Statutory Remedy under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking the removal of an alleged encroachment on public utility land in a specific village.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the petition as a statutory remedy was available under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The court permitted the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the Assistant Collector for initiating a proceeding under Section 122-B, with a clarification that all facts would be subject to verification and due notice to affected parties.
Issues: The main issue was the availability of a statutory remedy under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the court's jurisdiction to entertain the petition in light of the statutory provision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the principle that matters subject to statutory remedies should be pursued through the prescribed legal process.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, permitting the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 122-B of the Act, with a directive for expeditious decision-making and due verification of facts.
The petitioner, invoking the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation, seeks the removal of an alleged encroachment made on public utility land, comprising of Gata No. 213 recorded as 'way/path' situated at Village Garthaulia, Pargana Maghar (East), Tehsil Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
2. Since a statutory remedy is available under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grievance. However, since the statutory remedy is available, we permit the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the Assistant Collector who shall, upon verification of facts, initiate a proceeding under Section 122-B of the Act if the facts and circumstances of the case so justify. In the event, such proceeding is initiated, an expeditious decision shall be taken thereon.
3. We, however, clarify that all facts shall be subject to due verification and any proceeding that may be adopted will be with due notice to all the affected parties.
4. With these observations, we dispose of this petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
