Surendra Tiwari vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2714

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Surendra Tiwari - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 5 Others - Respondents
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) NO. - 1138 OF 2023.
Decided On : 05-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Juned Alam
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 67 - Public Interest Litigation regarding encroachment of public utility land - Petitioner alleged permanent construction by respondents causing public inconvenience - Court emphasized the duty of authorities to act on citizen reports of encroachment, clarifying that residents can inform authorities, and initiating proceedings under Section 67 is mandatory upon receipt of such information. (Paras 6, 10, 15)

(B) Public Interest Litigation - Court confirmed locus standi of citizens in reporting encroachments affecting public interest while mandating a proper inquiry into the allegations. (Paras 11, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged encroachment by private respondents on public land recorded as 'banjar', causing inconvenience to villagers. Petitioner reported this to local authorities but no action was taken.

Findings of Court:
Court directed the authorities to inform the Assistant Collector about the reported encroachments for necessary action within six months.

Issues: The key issue addressed was whether citizens could initiate action under Section 67 regarding reported encroachments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 67 allows citizens to bring encroachments to notice of authorities, requiring subsequent action and inquiry from officials.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to initiate proceedings under Section 67.

Table of Content
1. allegations of encroachment on public land. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. opposition based on procedural requirements for encroachment action. (Para 6 , 13 , 14)
3. requirements for action under section 67 of the u.p. revenue code. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15)
4. court directives for further action on encroachment. (Para 16)
5. disposal of the writ petition. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Srivastava, J.

Heard Shri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Kumar Tewari learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for state respondents and Shri Brij Kumar Saroj holding brief of Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. Through the instant Public Interest Litigation the petitioner prays for redressal of his grievances arising out of encorachment carried out by respondent nos. 45 to 6. This is the allegation of the petitioner that all the private respondents encroached the land pertaining to pond and public utility lands recorded in the revenue record as 'banjar' against plot no.129 area 0.081 hectare.

3. The encroachment as alleged by the petitioner has been carried out in the shape of permanent construction, opening the drainage over the public way and by way of fixing their boundary marks which is directly creating inconvenience to the public at large, specially for the villagers residing at Village Panchayat Sargatiya Karan Patti, Tappa - Dhuriya Vijaypur, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, Tehsil Tamkuhiraj, District Kushi Nagar.

4. Being the vigilant citizen as well as resident of the same village, petitioner informed respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 with regard to encroachment continuously carried out by respondent nos. 4 to 6.

5. In spite of informatory application/letter submitted before the offcial respondent which is appended to the petition and marked as Annexure No.2 dated 6.2.2023 but till today no action has been initiated by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 which creates cause of action in favour of the public at large, specially the villagers preferring the instant Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the majority of the residents of the Village Panchayat Sargatiya Karan Patti, Tappa - Dhuriya Vijaypur, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, Tehsil Tamkuhiraj, District Kushi Nagar.

6. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and took the shelter of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is reproduced here below:

67 Power to prevent damage, misappropriation and wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat property.- (1) Where any property entrusted or deemed to be entrusted under the provisions of this Code to a Gram Panchayat or other local authority is damaged or misappropriated, or where any Gram Panchayat or other authority is entitled to take possession of any land under the provisions of this Code and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions, the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or other authority or the Lekhpal concerned, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector concerned in the manner prescribed.

(2) Where from the information received under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated, or any person is in occupation of any land referred to in that sub-section in contravention of the provisions of this Code, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him and why he should not be evicted from such land.

(3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under subsection (2) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insuffic