Allahabad High Court
Yushuf Raza vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Govind Mathur, Chief Justice, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Chief Justice's Court
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 497 of 2021
Petitioner :- Yushuf Raza
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- M J Akhtar,Sr. Advocate Shri V.M. Zaidi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This petition for writ filed in public interest is before us to have following reliefs:-
?a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 5 to comply the judgment and orders passed by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in Hinchlal Tiwari case and the direction given by this Hon?ble Court in the case of Supporting India Welfare Society dated 16.09.2019 by removing the illegal construction raised over the land of Khasra No. 1281 belong to village Pond situated in Village Chholas, Tahsil Dadri, Distrit Gautam Budh Nagar by disposing them from the land of village Pond.
b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 5 to taken the action by restraining the respondent no. 6 to 11 not to raise the further construction over the land of Khasra No. 1281 belong to village Pond situated in Village Chholas, Tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.?
According to the petitioners, respondent nos. 6 to 11 have encroached a part of land that is recorded as ?pond? in revenue records of Village Chholas, Tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. It is further submitted that the respondents mentioned above are going to raise construction over the pond land bearing Khasra No. 1281, Village Chholas.
While placing reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari Versus Kamla Tiwari and others reported in 2001 AIR (SC) 3215, it is submitted that the material resources of community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain, etc. are nature?s bounty and the Government including revenue authorities are required to protect that.
No such land, as per the petitioners, can be used for any purpose other than the prescribed and encroachment thereon is required to be removed without any consideration. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Support India Welfare Society Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and 7 others (Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1474 of 2019); decided on 16.09.2019 issued certain directions for constituting a Committee to ensure that no restricted land be encroached and further if any encroachment is made then that be removed.
Before entering into the merits of the instant matter, suffice to state that statutory remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. Such a statutory remedy, in normal course, is not required to be ignored by entertaining petitions for writ.
True it is, in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra), the Apex Court has noticed that ponds, forests, hills, hillock, mountain, etc. are the gift of nature to living-beings and those must be protected with all vigour and no encroachments be permitted thereon, but, merely on that count, it cannot be held that a writ Court must entertain a petition for writ where statutory remedy is otherwise prescribed. We are also aware of the legal position that availability of even an efficacious alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction, but, at the same time, it is also well settled that doctrine of approaching writ Court after exhausting all remedies must not be ignored in an usual course. There must be some definite allegations for violation of fundamental rights, violation of principle of natural justice and further that even such rights cannot be protected by availing the statutory remedy. No such eventuality exists in the instant matter.
In our considered opinion, the petitioners can very well avail remedy under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 for redressal of their grievance.
In view of it, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy and if such remedy is availed, then the adjudicating Authority shall ensure expeditious disposal of the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021/Shubham
.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)
