Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20798 of 2013 Petitioner :- Bhagauti Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C. Kushwaha,Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Singh Parihar
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Ojha, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. the District Administrative Authorities to take action against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 so as to clear the pond on Gata No. 131 in its original position situate in village Kanaili, Pargana Karari, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
The respondent No.4 in the counter affidavit have clearly stated that the aforesaid pond on Gata No. 131 has an area of 0.392 hectares and it is still being used as a pond. The rest of the land area of 0.087 hectares is a plain area which was never used as a pond. On this plain area, respondent No. 6 Kali Charan has built a house under Mahamaya Residential Scheme on an area of 0.003 hectares and on the area of 0.004 hectares, respondent No.5 Ramdin has constructed khaprail house. On an area of 0.046 hectares, a primary school is situated and an area of 0.034 hectares is that of road.
It is also stated that the possession of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the said land is for a very long time and since they belong to Scheduled Castes community, on humanitarian ground, their possession has not been disturbed in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Jagat Pal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (2011 (3) AWC 2379 (SC)).
In view of the aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the pond is separate and that the constructions of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and that of the road of the Mandi Samiti and the primary school are separate which are on the plain area which was never used as a pond.
In view of the above, the petitioner who is simply a resident of the village is not entitle to any direction for the restoration of the pond in its original condition by removing the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from the land occupied by them.
In case the petitioner feels that the public land has been occupied illegally by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, his remedy is to inform the Land Management Committee for taking appropriate action in accordance with law for the eviction of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Nirmal Sinha