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

2016 Supreme(All) 2615

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
V.K. Shukla, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.
Udai Pratap And Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And 10 Others - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 27234 of 2016
Decided On : 04-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Krishna Chandra Pandey.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

The main legal point established is that in cases of encroachment on Gaon Sabha land, the petitioners should pursue the remedy provided under the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.

Headnote:

Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act - Encroachment on Gaon Sabha Land - The court held that the petitioner should pursue the remedy provided under Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, and Section 136 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, for ejectment and damages in cases of encroachment on public utility land.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners complained about encroachment on Gaon Sabha land and sought the court's intervention for its removal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners should pursue the remedy provided under the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, as a comprehensive procedure has been provided for ejectment and damages in such cases.

Issues: Encroachment on Gaon Sabha land, petitioner's request for court intervention, applicability of relevant legal provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the comprehensive procedure provided under Section 122-B of the Act of 1950 and Section 136 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, for ejectment and damages in cases of encroachment on public utility land.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to pursue the available remedy under the relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Udai Pratap and Pramod Kumar are before this Court with a complaint that over Gaon Sabha land i.e. Plot No.151 area 158 hectare situated in village Bahiri, Pargana and Tehsil Kerakat, Distt. Jaunpur, there is encroachment, that has been so made by the private respondent nos. 5 to 10, and said encroachment in question is not at all being removed, whereas he has already represented the matter before the authority concerned and as such, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.

2. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is a self contained Act and therein under Section 122-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "the Act of 1950"), a comprehensive procedure has been provided for wherein order of ejectment as well as damages can be imposed. A Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. - 9514 of 2014 (P.I.L.) (Ram Sijore Vs. State of U.P. & others) has already taken a view that in such a matters once a full fledged mechanism has been provided for to remedy the situation, then the said remedy should be invoked, as such, there is no occasion for this Court to permit the petitioner to by-pass the provisions, as is provided for under Section 122-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950.

3. As on date the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 (U.P. Act No.VIII of 2012) (in short "the Code") has been enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature to consolidate and amend the law relating to land tenures and land revenue in the State of U.P. and which is holding the field, wherein full fledged mechanism has been provided for pursuing the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. Section 67 of the Code deals with power to prevent damage, misappropriation and wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat property. In Section 136 exhaustive procedure has been provided for, wherein order of ejectment as well as damages can be imposed, which is analogous provisions of Section 122-B of the Act of 1950 and in which it is provided that if the encroachment is on a public utility land, proceedings under Section 136 of the Code are available to be adopted.

4. Once full fledged mechanism has been provided for in the Code, in view of this, and as per the judgment of this Court in Ram Sijore (Supra), the petitioner should pursue his remedy as is available to him. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.


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 Back to top