Back
2016 Supreme(All) 2201
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
For the Petitioner: Harish Kumar Yadav, Vinay Kumar Sharma.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Yadav.
Availability of statutory remedy under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or the new Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
Headnote:
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.
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT : S.122(b)
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.
