A writ petition cannot be filed individually by a Gram Panchayat member without a resolution from the Gaon Sabha, highlighting the need for collective decision-making in statutory bodies.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

This writ petition has been filed for following prayer :

(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to demarcate the Gata No. 402 from the Gata No. 350 as well as assure that the nature of the pasture land may not be changed which is located at village-Chandravat @ Pure Matadin, Pargana-Sikandra, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District Prayagraj.

(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 3 to assure that status quo relating to the Gata No. 402 (Pasture land) may be maintained unless and until the demarcation of the aforesaid Gata No. 402, located at village-Chandravat @ Pure Matadin, Pargana-Sikandra, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, is made by the team of the Lekhpals of other circule.

(C) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(D) Issue the award cost of the writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that this petition has been filed by Ram Babu i.e. petitioner claiming himself to be authorised by Gram Panchayat for filing this writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that Gata No. 402 located at Village Chandravat @ Pure Matadin, Pargana Sikandra, Tehsil Phoopur, District Prayagraj is the pasture land over which respondent No. 4 started illegal construction and complaint regarding this was made by the petitioner to respondent authorities but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised as regards to maintainability of writ petition by the learned Standing Counsel on following grounds :

1. This writ petition has been filed by one Rambabu son of Kedar Nath but there is no averment in the present writ petition that Rambabu, petitioner is the pradhan of the village and petition has not been filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha or Land Management Committee.

2. The instant petition has been filed without resolution of the Land Management Committee to file this petition and without obtaining approval to any such resolution from the Sub Divisional Officer/Collector which is a statutory requirement in terms of the various provisions contained in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, U.P. Gram Sabha Manual, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the rules framed thereunder.

3. In absence of requisite resolution duly approved by the S.D.M./Collector for engaging a private counsel, the petition can be filed only by the counsel appointed by the State Government to represent the Land Management Committee before this Court and not by any other private counsel.

4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the pradhan of the village Chandrawat (Khargu Ka Pura), Post Tejpur, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj and has relied upon the authorization dated 20.7.2023 filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The authorization relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quoted as under :

5. Before examining the rival contention of the parties, it will be appropriate to look into the statutory provisions made in this regard.

6. U.P. Revenue Code,, 2006 as amended by U.P. Act, 2016 repealed as many as 39 enactments, including U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and century old U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The, U.P. Re