Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Achche Lal vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 October, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35804 of 2018 Petitioner :- Achche Lal Respondent :- State Of U P And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Baranwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to private respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court asking the respondents to take appropriate action in pursuance of order dated 28.5.2018 passed by second respondent under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was based on the basis of enquiry report dated 30.6.2018 and 26.9.2018 submitted by third respondent and for a direction to second respondent to take appropriate decision on the application dated 30.09.2018 of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid proceeding has been finalised on the basis of aforesaid report way back on 28.5.2018 but the private respondents arrayed as respondent nos.4 to 9 have proceeded to destroy the pillars, which were ensured in response to the order dated 28.5.2018. As such it is requested that direction may be issued to the SDM concerned to pass appropriate order in response to the order dated 28.5.2018. It is also contended that for redressal of his grievance the petitioner has also made application before the second respondent on 30.09.2018 and the same may be directed to be decided expeditiously.
Learned Standing Counsel raised an objection that in case there is any destruction on the boundary mark, the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy to file application before the concerned Lekhpal as per the provisions contained under Section 22 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and as such no interference is required in the matter.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the second respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner and do the needful as per the provisions contained under Section 22 of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 SP/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Achche Lal vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 October, 2018
Judges
  • Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Advocates
  • Pankaj Baranwal