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

2024 Supreme(All) 1305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Ambika Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 1050 of 2024 with Public Interest Litigations No. 1238 of 2024; 1438 of 2024; 1573 of 2024; 1576 of 2024; 2250 of 2023; 1924 of 2024; and, 1977 of 2024
Decided On : 23-10-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S/Sri Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, Madan Mohan Srivastava, Ram Bahadur Singh, Suneel Kumar Mishra, Vijay Kumar, Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava, Janardan Shukla, Udai Shankar Chauhan, Advocates
For the Respondent:S/Sri Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General assisted by J.N. Maurya, Chief Standing Counsel and Ravi Anand Agarwal, Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsels; and, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Hari Narayan Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, A.K. Pandey, Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Arun Kumar Pandey, Sudhir Bharti and Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Minor construction on land reserved for public purposes does not alter its nature, and objections lacking substantial evidence are invalid in public interest litigation.

Headnote:

(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 77, 59, 63(2)(a), and 101 - Public Interest Litigation - Construction of water tank and RCC Centre on land reserved for public purposes - Petitioners objected to construction, claiming due process was not followed - Court found construction serves public interest and does not change land's reserved nature - No Bhumidhari rights created, thus Section 77 does not apply - All petitions disposed of with directions for training of Pradhans. (Paras 1-34)

(B) Public Interest Litigation - The essence of public interest litigation is to serve genuine public causes, and objections raised without substantial evidence render such petitions unworthy. (Paras 24-25)

Facts of the case:

Petitioners opposed construction of public facilities on land reserved for Charagaah and other public purposes, arguing that due process was not followed. The State contended that the construction serves public interest and does not alter the land's reserved status.

Findings of Court:

The court concluded that the construction of the water tank and RCC Centre does not change the reserved nature of the land and serves a public purpose. The objections raised were found to lack merit.

Issues: Whether the construction of public facilities alters the reserved nature of the land and whether the objections raised by the petitioners are valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that minor construction on reserved land for public purposes does not constitute a change in its nature, and objections lacking substantial evidence are not valid in public interest litigation.

Result: All public interest litigations are disposed of favorably towards the construction projects.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. This bunch of public interest litigations are filed by few villagers of concerned village mainly opposing construction of water tank and in one case construction of RCC Centre, on the land reserved in concerned village for Charagaah, Gadahi, Naveen Parti, Khalihaan or other public purposes.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners mainly argued that if a land is reserved for a particular purpose (such as Charagaah, Khalihaan etc.), nature of same cannot be changed except in exceptional circumstances by due prescribed process, however, due process has not been followed in the present cases and only on basis of resolution of Gram Sabha concerned, permission for construction was granted.

3. In Public Interest Litigation No. 1576 of 2024 (Radhey Shyam Gupta) it has been brought on record that nature of land has been changed vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed under Section 101 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, therefore, counsel for said petitioner has instruction not to press the public interest litigation.

4. During hearing, a question was raised by this Court that, whether there is any dispute that construction of water tank or RCC Centre is a work of public interest, i.e., for the interest of villagers at large, to which counsel for petitioners have specifically stated that it is a work in larger public interest.

5. Another query was raised by this Court, whether due to construction of water tank or RCC Centre, nature of land reserved for a particular purpose would entirely change, i.e., whether the area used for said purpose is large or small, i.e., due to construction land would become useless for said purpose, but no specific answer was given by learned counsel for petitioners. However, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, on basis of instructions, submitted that construction is on a very small part of land which cannot change nature of land, i.e., the purpose for which it is reserved and land can be used still for said purpose.

6. Another query was raised by this Court, whether there is any material on record that land was earlier used only for the purpose for which it was reserved and whether there is any material before this Court that atleast during last five years or so, it was used for said purpose only, since no material has been brought on record. In one of the case it has been mentioned that land reserved for a particular public purpose is also used for marriage and other functions organized by villagers. In another public interest litigation, part of land is used as a playground, as reflected from photographs annexed to said PIL.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners have vehemently referred Section 77 of U.P. Land Revenue Code that Bhumidhari right cannot be accrued in certain land which includes, Khalihaan, Manure pits and other land described therein. However, said reliance is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Advocate General referring other provisions such as Sections 59 and 63(2)(a) of U.P. Revenue Code that it is not a case where Bhumidhari right has been created in favour of any person or party. The land always vests in the State Government and by an order it is reserved for specific purpose in Gaon Sabha. Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code, bars that on a land reserved for public purpose, no bhumidhari rights can be created but sub-section (2) of Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code provides that class of public utility land may be changed under due procedure, whereas in present cases nature of land may not be changed since only a very small part is proposed to be used for other public purposes. The land is being used for a public purpose which does not create any Bhumidhari right, therefore, the bar of Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code cannot come in way for construction of water tank or RCC Centre.

8. It is the case of State that for the purpose of construction of water tank and boring, an exercise was undertaken to find out a fit place for it and only thereafter on basis

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