# Ambika Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 621
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-23
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1050 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ambika-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51070
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

S/Sri Manish Goyal, Addl. Advocate General
assisted by J.N. Maurya, C.S.C. and Ravi Anand
Agarwal,
Rajesh
Kumar
Tripathi,
S.C.,
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Hari Narayan Singh,
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, A.K. Pandey, Pankaj
Kumar Gupta, Arun Kumar Pandey, Sudhir Bharti
& Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

A. Local Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 77 - Construction of water tank -
Bar u/s 77, how far relevant - Resolution
passed by the Gaon Sabha to use small
part
of
land
for
the
purpose
of
construction of water tank or RCC Centre,
out of the land marked for the purpose of
Charagaah, Naveen Parti, Khalihaan etc. -
Permissibility - Held, bar of Section 77 of
U.P. Revenue Code would not come in the
way, except if it is shown that there is
mala fide, which is not the case in present
PILs. - High Court found no merit in
challenge of the construction of water
tank and RCC Centre. (Para 21 and 27)

PIL disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Ambika Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
621
within two months from today to the
claimant-appellant,
failing
which
respondent Insurance Company is liable to
pay interest at the rate of 10% on enhanced
amount.

26. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 621
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1050 of 2024
Connected with PIL Nos. 1238 of 2024, 1438 of
2024, 1573 of 2024,
1576 of 2024, 2250 of 2023, 1924 of 2024 and
1977 of 2024

Ambika Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S/Sri Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, Madan Mohan
Srivastava, Ram Bahadur Singh, Suneel Kumar
Mishra,
Vijay
Kumar,
Kunwar
Bahadur
Srivastava, Janardan Shukla, Udai Shankar
Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S/Sri Manish Goyal, Addl. Advocate General
assisted by J.N. Maurya, C.S.C. and Ravi Anand
Agarwal,
Rajesh
Kumar
Tripathi,
S.C.,
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Hari Narayan Singh,
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, A.K. Pandey, Pankaj
Kumar Gupta, Arun Kumar Pandey, Sudhir Bharti
& Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

A. Local Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 77 - Construction of water tank -
Bar u/s 77, how far relevant - Resolution
passed by the Gaon Sabha to use small
part
of
land
for
the
purpose
of
construction of water tank or RCC Centre,
out of the land marked for the purpose of
Charagaah, Naveen Parti, Khalihaan etc. -
Permissibility - Held, bar of Section 77 of
U.P. Revenue Code would not come in the
way, except if it is shown that there is
mala fide, which is not the case in present
PILs. - High Court found no merit in
challenge of the construction of water
tank and RCC Centre. (Para 21 and 27)

PIL disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gaon Sabha Vs St. of U.P. & ors..;
2023:AHC:224233

2. Basdev Vs St. of U.P. & ors..; 2023(161) RD
467

3. Saddam Hussain Vs St. of U.P. & ors..; 2024
SCC OnLine All 596

4. Writ Petition No. 35251 of 2017; V. Deevana,
Nizamabad & ors.. Vs Prl Secy, Municipal Admn.
& ors.. decided by Telangana High Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. This bunch of public interest
litigations are filed by few villagers of
concerned
village
mainly
opposing
construction of water tank and in one case
construction of RCC Centre, on the land
reserved
in
concerned
village
for
Charagaah,
Gadahi,
Naveen
Parti,
Khalihaan or other public purposes.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners
mainly argued that if a land is reserved for
a particular purpose (such as Charagaah,
Khalihaan etc.), nature of same cannot be
changed
except
in
exceptional
circumstances by due prescribed process,
however, due process has not been
followed in the present cases and only on
basis
of
resolution of
Gram
Sabha
concerned, permission for construction was
granted.
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. In Public Interest Litigation No.
1576 of 2024 (Radhey Shyam Gupta) it has
been brought on record that nature of land
has been changed vide order dated
03.09.2024 passed under Section 101 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, therefore,
counsel for said petitioner has instruction
not to press the public interest litigation.

4. During hearing, a question was
raised by this Court that, whether there is
any dispute that construction of water tank
or RCC Centre is a work of public interest,
i.e., for the interest of villagers at large, to
which
counsel
for
petitioners
have
specifically stated that it is a work in larger
public interest.

5. Another query was raised by this
Court, whether due to construction of water
tank or RCC Centre, nature of land
reserved for a particular purpose would
entirely change, i.e., whether the area used
for said purpose is large or small, i.e., due
to construction land would become useless
for said purpose, but no specific answer
was
given
by
learned
counsel
for
petitioners. However, Sri Manish Goyal,
learned Additional Advocate General, on
basis
of
instructions,
submitted
that
construction is on a very small part of land
which cannot change nature of land, i.e.,
the purpose for which it is reserved and
land can be used still for said purpose.

6. Another query was raised by
this Court, whether there is any material
on record that land was earlier used only
for the purpose for which it was reserved
and whether there is any material before
this Court that atleast during last five
years or so, it was used for said purpose
only, since no material has been brought
on record. In one of the case it has been
mentioned that land reserved for a
particular public purpose is also used for
marriage and other functions organized by
villagers.
In
another
public
interest
litigation, part of land is used as a
playground, as reflected from photographs
annexed to said PIL.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners
have vehemently referred Section 77 of
U.P. Land Revenue Code that Bhumidhari
right cannot be accrued in certain land
which includes, Khalihaan, Manure pits
and other land described therein. However,
said reliance is vehemently opposed by
learned Additional Advocate
General
referring other provisions such as Sections
59 and 63(2)(a) of U.P. Revenue Code that
it is not a case where Bhumidhari right has
been created in favour of any person or
party. The land always vests in the State
Government and by an order it is reserved
for specific purpose in Gaon Sabha.
Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code, bars
that on a land reserved for public purpose,
no bhumidhari rights can be created but
sub-section (2) of Section 77 of U.P.
Revenue Code provides that class of
public utility land may be changed under
due procedure, whereas in present cases
nature of land may not be changed since
only a very small part is proposed to be
used for other public purposes. The land is
being used for a public purpose which
does not create any Bhumidhari right,
therefore, the bar of Section 77 of U.P.
Revenue Code cannot come in way for
construction of water tank or RCC Centre.

8. It is the case of State that for the
purpose of construction of water tank and
boring, an exercise was undertaken to find
out a fit place for it and only thereafter on
basis of resolution of Gaon Sabha, suitable
land was earmarked and construction was
started and in some of the villages it has
10 All. Ambika Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
623
already been concluded after spending
money of tax payers.

9. It is the categorical stand of
State that in PIL No 1238 of 2024 on the
land reserved as Khalihaan, some villagers
have encroached a part of it, against whom
proceedings were initiated under Section
67(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, however, the
same has not been disclosed in said PIL as
well as petitioner has not raised any voice
for their removal, therefore, said PIL is
nothing but is filed on basis of pick and
choose, only to make an objection to a
public cause. Learned counsel for petitioner
in said PIL has not been able to deny above
allegations. Since a small part of land was
used, therefore, there was no mandatory
requirement to pass such orders.

10. In PIL No. 1576 of 2024
(Radhey Shyam Gupta), a complete process
has been undertaken and order has been
passed under Section 101 of U.P. Revenue
Code for exchange, therefore, there is a
request to withdraw the public interest
litigation.

11. In PIL No. 1238 of 2024
(Yogendra Pandey and another), learned
Additional
Advocate
General,
on
instruction, has specifically stated that the
work on Gata No. 1411 under the scheme
of Jal Jeevan Yojna is stopped since there
was no resolution for construction on that
land, therefore, grievance of petitioners in
said PIL is satisfied. The construction is
carried out on the other earmarked land on
basis of resolution of Gaon Sabha.

12. In PIL No. 1438 of 2024
(Ravindra Nath Rai), the allegation of
petitioner is that land which is shown as
Naveen Parti was a Charagaah and
correction has not been made despite an
order was passed many years ago as well as
that construction of water tank is in the
middle of Gata and work is at a very initial
stage.

13. So far as correction in revenue
record is concerned, no proceedings were
undertaken
either
by
Gaon
Sabha
concerned or petitioner, therefore, at this
stage Court cannot enter into said dispute.
However, in case construction has not been
commenced and it is in the middle of said
land, the project can be relooked so that it
may be shifted to a corner, if other
requirements are satisfied otherwise it may
be made sure that construction of water
tank may not render the land, if used as a
Charagaah, later on unuseful.

14. In PIL No. 1573 of 2024 (Zafar
Ali), it is the case of State that out of land
measuring about 4550 sq. meter reserved
for Khalihaan, only 42 sq. meter land is
being used for construction of RCC Centre
and rest of land is available for the purpose
of Khalihaan as well as construction has
already been concluded and village has
been identified as a model village. This fact
has not been disputed by learned counsel
for petitioner.

15. In PIL No. 1924 of 2024 (Dilip
and another), the land is reserved as a
Naveen Parti, which is spread in number of
Gatas and out of which only part of 0.0610
of Gata No. 2039Ga is utilized, which
would not disturb the use of remaining area
as Naveen Parti.

16. In PIL No. 1977 of 2024
(Ramesh Singh) the land is used for Garahi
and Naveen Parti. Initially petitioner made
objection for cutting of trees, however a
report is placed on record that since the
trees belong to Forest Department and for
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the purpose of construction some trees
were required to be cut and where it was
found that some villagers have illegally cut
the trees, proceedings were initiated.

17. PIL No. 2250 of 2023 (Sunil
Kumar) was filed on two grounds. First is
to stop the construction of water tank and
second to remove encroachment over the
land by private Respondent-5, the present
Pradhan. In this regard it is directed that
present PIL shall be considered as an
information to Lekhpal to initiate inquiry as
required in accordance with provisions of
Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code.

18. During hearing learned counsel
for respective Gaon Sabhas have raised a
problem that Pradhans of concerned Gaon
Sabhas are not responding to their letters
seeking instruction and for that this Court
has
passed
an
order
for
personal
appearance of respective Pradhans of
concerned Gaon Sabhas.

19. All Pradhans of respective
Gaon Sabhas have appeared in person,
except of Gaon Sabha Jagannathpur, Tehsil
Nagina, District Bijnor (PIL No. 2250 of
2023). Court has interacted with Pradhans
which includes two women also but
surprisingly none of the Pradhan knew
about their functions, as mentioned in
Section 15 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,
1947.

20. Learned Additional Advocate
General has submitted that he will take this
matter before concerned department to
initiate some training programme either on
basis of Cluster or Commissionarate to
make aware Pradhans, specifically women,
about their rights and functions and to
discourage the concept of Pradhanpati. In
this regard reference may be taken of a
judgment passed by this Court in Gaon
Sabha vs. State of U.P. and others,
Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:224233.

21. The outcome of above
discussion is that since there is no change
of Bhumidhari rights, therefore, on basis of
resolution of Gaon Sabha if State has taken
a decision to use a very small part of land
for the purpose of construction of water
tank or RCC Centre, out of the land marked
for the purpose of Charagaah, Naveen
Parti, Khalihaan etc. the bar of Section 77
of U.P. Revenue Code would not come in
the way, except if it is shown that there is
mala fide, which is not the case in present
PILs.

22. As referred above, in PIL No.
1573 of 2024, construction of RCC Centre
has already been concluded and village has
come in the category of model village. In
PIL No. 1576 of 2024, an order has already
been passed under Section 101 of U.P.
Revenue Code for exchange, which is not
challenged, therefore, nothing survives in
objection.

23. Petitioners have not come up
with very specific case that land which is
reserved for the purpose of Charagaah,
Khalihaan etc. was earlier used for said
purpose only since in some of the case it is
used for marriage functions or playground
also, therefore, objection on construction of
water tank is nothing but an objection for
the sake of it only.

24. In PIL No. 1238 of 2024
petitioner has objected only construction of
water tank but has not even referred about
the encroachment on said land and for such
type of PIL the Court is of the view that
piousness of public interest litigation is
rendered unpious and the same cannot be
10 All. Ambika Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
625
considered to be a genuine public interest
litigation.

25. Learned counsel for petitioners
have placed reliance on some judgments
but no judgment is applicable in present set
of facts since in present case a very small
part of land is used for other public
purpose. The notification placed on record
are mainly for required steps if such land is
being used for company or other purpose
i.e. Bhumidhari rights were created, which
is not a case in hand. Reliance placed on
Basdev vs. State of U.P. and others,
2023(161) RD 467 by petitioners will also
not be useful since it was with regard to
Section 19A of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, where land reserved
for public purpose was allotted to villages
for construction of residence on valuation
whereas in present case no private interest
was created.

26. Per Contra learned Additional
Advocate General has rightly placed
reliance on Saddam Hussain vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine All
596 and V. Deevana, Nizamabad and
others vs. Prl Secy, Municipal Admn.
and others, (Writ Petition No. 35251 of
2017) decided by Telangana High Court,
where construction of water tanks was
considered to be a public work and
challenge to it was rejected.

27. In aforesaid circumstances, I
do not find that there is any merit to
challenge the construction of water tank
and RCC Centre which are also for
interest of villagers and since land
earmarked for it is undisputedly a very
small part of respective land, which does
not render said land unuseful for the said
purpose as well as that since no
Bhumidhari right is created, therefore,
bar under Section 77 of U.P. Revenue
Code does not exist.

28. In view of above, all the
public interest litigations are disposed of
with direction to concerned department to
initiate some training programme for
Pradhans within a period of three months
from today, either on basis of Cluster or
Commissionarate
to
make
aware
Pradhans, specifically women, about their
rights and functions and to discourage
concept of Pradhanpati.

29. With regard to PIL No. 1438
of 2024 (Ravindra Nath Rai), it is
directed that if construction of water tank
is not commenced, authorities concerned
may take steps to shift the same in corner
of said Gata, if possible.

30. In PIL No. 2250 of 2023
(Sunil Kumar), it is directed that any
person from family of Pradhan or
Pradhan himself, if has encroached on
land belongs to Gaon Sabha, shall release
the same within one month from today
and in case it is not released within said
period, a resolution be passed to initiate
proceeding under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.

31. In PIL No. 1238 of 2024,
petitioner is directed to file any subsequent
PIL on correct material to espouse larger
public cause only.

32. Before parting, it is necessary
to observe that whenever even a very small
part an area, reserved for a public purpose,
is used for other public purpose, the Gaon
Sabha concerned and officials of State will
take endeavour to make out a larger
consensus amongst the villagers so that
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they may not approach this Court to oppose
the public cause.

33. A copy of this order be sent to
Principal
Secretary,
Panchayat
Raj
Department, Government of U.P. Lucknow
for compliance.

34. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 626
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 4 of 2023

Chetram @ Mintu & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ashish Mishra, Jai Shanker Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Kaushlendra Nath Singh

Civil Law - Review - Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 - Section 141- Order 47,
Rule 1 - Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Writ Petition - Review is permissible only
when there is error apparent on the face of
record i.e. error should be grave and
palpable, and the error must be such as
would be apparent on mere looking of record,
without requiring any long drawn process of
reasoning, and reappraisal of entire evidence
for finding the error, as same would amount
to exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Review
lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order
47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. Party
must satisfy the Court that the matter or
evidence discovered by it at a subsequent
stage could not be discovered or produced at
the initial stage though it had acted with due
diligence. A party filing a review application
on the ground of any other "sufficient reason"
must satisfy that the said reason is analogous
to the conditions mentioned in the said
provision of C.P.C. Neither review court can
examine the merit of the judgment as an
appellate court nor in the garb of review
petition, re-hearing of the matter can be
permitted by this Court - In the instant
case each and every aspect of the matter
was considered by the Division Bench and
thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed. No
case was made out to review the judgment.
(Para 22, 23)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Gajraj Singh & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.2011
(11) ADJ 1 (FB)
2. Pratap Singh Vs St. of UP & ors. Writ C
No.6022 of 2008 decided on 17.02.2012
3. Kanwar Raj Singh (D) through Legal
Representatives Vs GEJO (D) Through Legal
Representatives & ors. (2024) 2 SCC 416
4. Ram Saran Lall Vs Domini Kuer AIR 1961 SC
1747
5. Shivdeo Singh Vs St. of Pun. . AIR 1963 SC
1909
6. A.P. Sharma Vs A.P. Sharma 1979 (4) SCC
389
7. Meera Bhanja Vs Nirmla K. Chaudhary 1995
(1) SCC 170
8.
Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan
Hegde
Vs
Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC
137
9. Parsion Devi & ors. Vs Sumitri Devi & ors.
1997 (8) J.T. SC 480