Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19874 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashok Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Awtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri M.B. Singh, holding brief of Shri Ram Awtar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5.
Notice need not be issued to the private respondent no.6, in view of the order proposed to be passed.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the show cause notice dated 19.3.2018 issued by the fourth respondent, Tehsildar, Tehsil Madhuban, District Mau in respect of Arazi No.160K area 0.1160 hectare situated in Village Jajauli, Tehsil Madhuban, District Mau and for direction to the third respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Madhuban, District Mau to ensure demarcation of the land in question recorded as Pokhari (pond) in revenue record within stipulated time.
Shri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised objection that the present impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.2.2018 passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2884 of 2018 (Jayant Kumar Pandey vs. State of UP and 4 others) wherein the petitioner namely Jayant Kumar Pandey had proceeded to make a complaint before the Court that the private respondents have encroached the pond in question and as such, they are liable to be evicted from the said land. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 13.2.2018, asking the concerned Tehsildar to pass an appropriate order in the matter within two months.
In response thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner states that for ousting an encroacher, who has made any encroachment over the Gaon Sabha land, there is full fledged mechanism provided in the form of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, whereas in the present matter, at no point of time the said procedure has been adhered and in most arbitrary manner without deciding the said objection, the respondent has proceeded to impose the damages on the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the objection so filed by the petitioner under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is concerned, the same is liable to be decided by the authority concerned expeditiously.
In view of the above, on consent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the fourth respondent to decide the aforesaid objection, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Till disposal of the aforesaid objection, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 RKP