Arun Kumar Tripathi vs State Of Up And 10 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15530 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Arun Kumar Tripathi vs State Of Up And 10 Others on 3 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80238
 
Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 857 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 10 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Prakash Deo Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pradeep Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 to 5 to remove the illegal encroachment made over the Plot No.5 Kha, Plot No.7, Plot No.47, Plot No.48 Ga, Plot No.55, Plot No.56, Plot No.63 Ka, Plot No.5 Kha and the other Plots situate in the Village Aheai Purab Patti, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra and Plot No.15 situate in the Village Pachokhar, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra which are recorded as "Banjar", "Nali", "Bandh" etc. in the revenue records and the plots are public utility land of the Gaon Sabha of Village Aheai Purab Patti, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra and the Gaon Sabha of the Village Pachokhar, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra and the respondents IInd Set may be evicted from the plots in question.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate/Collector, Sonbhadra to decide the representation dated 12.04.2024 moved by the petitioner which is pending before him within a reasonable time or as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach appropriate authority by moving an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2017(4) ADJ 619 as well as in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 226.

4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition.

5. In case, the petitioner moves an application under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate authority, the same shall be decided after hearing all the concerned parties in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 3.5.2024

Nitika Sri.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)