Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Yashwant Varma, J.
Daya Shankar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 12818 of 2016
Decided On : 28-03-2016
Public Interest Litigation - Land Encroachment - Statutory Remedy Available
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking the removal of an alleged encroachment on public utility land.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the petition as a statutory remedy was available under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or the new Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Issues: Availability of statutory remedy, jurisdiction of the court
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grievance but permitted the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the Assistant Collector for initiating a proceeding under the relevant statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available.
The petitioner, invoking the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation, seeks the removal of an alleged encroachment made on public utility land, comprising arazi no.636, ad-measuring 0.3600 hectare, situated at Village Umari Kala, Post Umari Badlapur, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur.
2. Since a statutory remedy is available under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or, as the case may be, upon the enforcement of the new Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 under Section 67 thereof, 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 or, as the case may be, upon the enforcement of the new Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 under Section 67 thereof, 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
