Radhey Shyam Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 21236 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 894 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Tiwari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 8 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Pandey,Pankaj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 5 i.e. State of U.P. , District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, Tehsildar, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh and Gram Panchayat Delhupur, Pargana Patti, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh respectively to forthwith expunge the entry of the respondent nos. 6 to 9 from the Gata No. 257/ 13 Bigha 9 Biswa 19 Dhur (New gata No. 248) recorded as Talab in 1356 Fasli of Village Delhupur, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh and also remove the illegal encroachment/possession of the respondent nos. 6 to 9 and others from the land of aforesaid Gata No. 257/ 13 Bigha 9 Biswa 19 Dhur (New Gata No. 248).

Learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel representing the Gram Panchayat have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the present petition.

Firstly, the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials while filing the present petition as per the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the Cases of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal reported in (2010 3 SCC 402 and in the case of Gurmeet Singh Soni (Adv) Vs. State of U.P. ( PIL Civil No. 11520 of 2021, Judgment dated 07.06.2021) respectively

Secondly, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that there is entry in favour of the respondent nos. 6 to 9, then possession of the respondent nos. 6 to 9 over the land in question cannot be said an illegal encroachment.

Thirdly, for expunging any entry in the revenue records, respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are not empowered under the law so, direction in the nature of mandamus could not be issued to them.

Fourthly, petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, thus, if he is aggrieved by any entry allegedly be made wrongly in the revenue records, he has to avail the remedy as provided under the law and not to file the present public interest litigation.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present public interest litigation with a liberty to avail the alternative statutory remedy for correction of errors and omission in the revenue records and if any encroachment then to file a case under Section 67 of the Code, 2006.

As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present public interest litigation is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to avail the remedy as permissible under the law.

Order Date :- 15.12.2022

Ashish