Purshottam Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 17111 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Purshottam Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others on 14 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89064
 
Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 953 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- Purshottam Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Achal Singh,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
 

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

2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed for the following relief :

"issue a order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to complied with the Hon'ble Court order dated 04.02.2020 within stipulated period.

ii) issue a order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the remove/evict the land in question from the respondent Nos. 7 to 10 situated in Village Raipurwa, Post Mamsi Bujurg, District Chitrakoot on which the respondents are illegally raising construction.

iii) issue a order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.7 and 10 to remove the illegal construction from Gata No.181 area 486 hectare of Khata No.186 is recorded as Marghat in the revenue record of village Raipurwa."

3. Relief no.(i) claimed in the writ petition is to direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with the order dated 4.2.2020 passed by this Court in PIL No.197/2020. A writ petition cannot be filed for compliance of orders passed by this Court. Remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. He may move contempt application in case orders passed by this Court is not complied with.

4. So far as prayer no.(ii) made in the writ petition is utterly vague as neither the numbers have been given over which it is alleged that respondent Nos.7 to 10 have encroached. Therefore, the said relief also cannot be granted to the petitioner.

5. With regard to prayer no.(iii), petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent Nos.7 to 10 to remove the encroachments made by them over Gata No.181 of Khata No.186 recorded as Marghat. No direction can be issued to the private respondents in this regard in exercise of jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. 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 judgments passed by this Court in case of Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2017(4) ADJ 619 as well as in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 226.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

Order Date :- 14.5.2024

Rishabh

[Manish Kumar Nigam, J.]