# Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 167
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-27
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 2117 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kanhaiya-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49415
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 67-Petition filed to take appropriate
action u/s 67 of the Code, 2006-for removal of
illegal encroachment from the plot which are
recorded as "Garaha" and reserved for "Holika
Dahan"- and to restore the same in its original
form-
Assistant
Collector
concerned
has
exclusive jurisdiction- to exercise power to
prevent damage, misappropriation and wrongful
occupation of gram panchayat property u/s 67
of the Code.

Petition dismissed. (E-9)
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
167
claimants in appeal deserves to be
revised and determined in the following
manner :

S. No. Particulars

Amount
(in ₹)
(i)

Monthly Income (of
the deceased)
=
5000/-
(ii)
Monthly Income +
Future
Prospects
(Monthly Income x
50%) = 5000+2500
=
7500/-
(iii)
Annual Income (of
the
deceased)
=
7500x12
=
90,000/-
(iv)
Annual Dependency
= Annual Income -
50%
deduction
towards
personal
expenses
of
the
deceased = 90000 -
45000
=

45,000/-
(v)
Total Dependency =
Annual Dependency
x Applied Multiplier
= 45000 x 18
=
8,10,000/-
(vi)
Claimants'
entitlement towards
conventional heads =
Loss of Estate +
Funeral Expenses +
dependents'
Consortium
=15000+15000+4000
0x2
=
1,10,000/-

TOTAL
COMPENSATION
(₹8,10,000 +
1,10,000)

=
9,20,000/-
Total Compensation = ₹9,20,000
(Rupees Nine Lacs Twenty Thousand
Only)

43. In the result, this appeal stands
allowed in part. The impugned award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
compensation awarded is enhanced to
₹9,20,000. The aforesaid sum of money
shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of institution of
the claim petition, until realization. Any
sum of money already deposited with the
Tribunal by the insurers, pursuant to the
impugned award or the interim orders
passed by this Court, shall be adjusted. The
other directions of the Tribunal in the
award shall remain intact.

44. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 167
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 2117 of
2023

Kanhaiya Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Dharmendra
Kumar
Tripathi,
Sri
Shashank Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 67-Petition filed to take appropriate
action u/s 67 of the Code, 2006-for removal of
illegal encroachment from the plot which are
recorded as "Garaha" and reserved for "Holika
Dahan"- and to restore the same in its original
form-
Assistant
Collector
concerned
has
exclusive jurisdiction- to exercise power to
prevent damage, misappropriation and wrongful
occupation of gram panchayat property u/s 67
of the Code.

Petition dismissed. (E-9)
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cases cited:

1. Shravan Kumar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported in 2022 (147) RD 373

2. Pankaj Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Public
Interest Litigation No.1892 of 2022

3. Rashid Ahmed Vs Municipal Board, Kairana
AIR 1950 SC 163

4. Nain Sukh Das Vs The St. of U.P. AIR 1953
SC 384

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

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

2. This Public Interest Litigation
has been filed for issuance of a writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondentauthorities to take appropriate action in
view of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 for removal of illegal
encroachment from the plot nos.163,
167, which are recorded as "Garaha"
and plot no.165, which is reserved for
"Holika Dahan" respectively situated in
Village-Hamjapur,
Tehsil-Sadar,
District-Jaunpur and to restore the same
in its original form within a stipulated
period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
the petitioner claims himself to be a
social worker and resident of VillageHamjapur,
Tehsil-Sadar,
DistricttJaunpur. His grievance is that during
the consolidation proceedings, Gata
Nos.163 and 167 are recorded as
Garaha (pond) and Gata No.165 is
reserved
for
Holika
Dahan.
The
aforesaid land of Gata Nos.163, 167
and 165 have been encroached by
respondent no.9 to 15. It is further
claimed that in order to get the
encroachments
removed
by
the
respondent nos. 9 to 15, application as
well as representation have been moved
by the petitioner to the Chief Minister,
Uttar Pradesh, concerned S.D.M and
concerned Tehsildar. It has been further
claimed that the local Lekhpal in collusion
with the private respondents has submitted
a false and fake report before the
authorities. It has also been stated that the
respondent authorities are empowered
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 to get the illegal encroachment
removed and, therefore, the present PIL has
been filed for the relief mentioned above.

4. Contention of learned Counsel for
the petitioner is that despite complaint
being made with the authorities concerned,
the respondents have failed to remove the
encroachment made by respondent nos. 9
to 15 from the public utility land.

5. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel contended that the petitioner can
approach the authority by filing an
application under Section 67 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, which provides the
statutory remedy to the petitioner and the
present PIL as framed may not be
entertained for the aforesaid reason.

6.

Considering
the
rival
submissions, it is useful to look into the
provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
11 All. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169
In this regard, Section 67 of the
Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under
:

67.
Power
to
prevent
(damage),
misappropriation
and
wrongful
occupation
of
(Gram
Panchayat) (Property).-(1) Where any
property entrusted or deemed to be
entrusted under the provisions of this
Code to a [Gram Panchayat] or other
local
authority
is
damaged
or
misappropriated, or where any [Gram
Panchayat] or other authority is
entitled to take possession of any land
under the provisions of this Code and
such land is occupied otherwise than in
accordance with the said provisions, the
Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or other
authority or the Lekhpal concerned, as
the case may be, shall inform the
[Assistant Collector] concerned in the
manner prescribed.

[(2)
Where
from
the
information received under sub-section
(1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector
is satisfied that any property referred to
in sub-section (1) has been damaged or
misappropriated, or any person is in
occupation of any land referred to in
that sub-section in contravention of the
provisions of this Code, he shall issue
notice to the person concerned to show
cause why compensation for damage,
misappropriation
or
wrongful
occupation not exceeding the amount
specified in the notice be not recovered
from him and why he should not be
evicted from such land.]

(3) If the person to whom a
notice has been issued under subsection (2) fails to show cause within
the time specified in the notice or within
such extended time as the [Assistant
Collector] may allow in this behalf, or
if the cause shown is found to be
insufficient, the [Assistant Collector]
may direct that such person shall be
evicted from the land, and may, for that
purpose, use or cause to be used such
force as may be necessary, and may
direct that the amount of compensation
for damage or misappropriation of the
property or for wrongful occupation as
the case may be, be recovered from
such person as arrears of land revenue.

(4) If the [Assistant Collector]
is of opinion that the person showing
cause is not guilty of causing the
damage
or
misappropriation
or
wrongful occupation referred to in the
notice under sub-section (2), he shall
discharge the notice.

(5) Any person aggrieved by
an order of the [Assistant Collector]
under Sub-section (3) or Sub-Section
(4), may within thirty days from the date
of such order, prefer an appeal to the
Collector.

(6) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other provisions of this
Code, and subject to the provisions of
this section every order of the SubDivisional Officer under this section
shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (5) be final.

(7) The procedure to be
followed in any action taken under this
section shall be such as may be
prescribed.

Explanation.
-
For
the
purposes of this section, the word
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"land" shall include the trees and
building standing thereon.

7. Rule 66 and 67 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 provides for the
detailed procedure for inquiry as well as
procedure
for
removal
of
encroachments over the public utility
land of the Gaon Sabha. Rules 66 and
67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are
quoted as under :

"66. Information to Assistant
Collector
(Section
67).--
The
information
to
Assistant
Collector
required by Section 67(1) shall be
submitted by the Chairman or any
member or the Secretary of the Land
Management Committee, or any officer
of the Local Authority concerned in
R.C. Form-19.

67.
Further
inquiry
by
Assistant Collector (Section 67).-- (1)
On receipt of the information under
Rule 66, or on facts otherwise
coming
to
his
knowledge,
the
Assistant Collector may make such
inquiry as he deems proper and
may obtain further information
regarding the following points --

(a)
full
description
of
damage
or
misappropriation
caused or the wrongful occupation
made with details of village, plot
number, area, boundary, property
damaged or misappropriated and
market value thereof;

(b) full address along with
parentage of the person responsible for
such damage, misappropriation or
wrongful occupation;

(c)
period
of
wrongful
occupation,
damage
or
misappropriation and class of soil of
the plots involved;

(d) value of the property
damaged or misappropriated calculated
at the circle rate fixed by the Collector
and the amount sought to be recovered
as damages.

(2) The Assistant Collector
shall thereafter proceed to take action
under section 67(2) and for that
purpose issue a notice to the person
concerned in R.C. Form-20 to show
cause as to why compensation for
damage, misappropriation or wrongful
occupation not exceeding the amount
specified in the notice be not recovered
from him and why he should not be
evicted from such land.

(3) If the notice referred to in
section 67(2) remains uncomplied with
or if the cause shown by the person
concerned is found to be insufficient,
the Assistant Collector may direct by
order that --

(a) such person be evicted by
using such force as may be necessary;
or

(b)
the
amount
of
compensation for damage or wrongful
occupation ordered by the Assistant
Collector, if not paid in specified time,
may be recovered as arrears of land
revenue, including the amount of
expenses referred to in sub-rule (3).

(4) The amount of damages
sought to be recovered and the expenses
of execution of the order shall be
specified in such notice, which shall be
determined in the following manner:-
11 All. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171

(a) In the case of damage or
misappropriation,
the
amount
of
damages shall be assessed at the
prevailing market rate.

(b) In the case of unauthorized
occupation of any land, the amount of
damages shall be the amount equal to
the five percent of the market value of
the land calculated at the circle rate
fixed by the Collector for each year of
unauthorized occupation.

(c) The expenses of execution
of the order shall be assessed on the
basis of one day's pay and allowances
payable to the staff deputed.

(5) If the person wrongfully
occupying the land has done cultivation
therein, he may be allowed to retain
possession
thereof
until
he
has
harvested the crops subject to the
payment by him of the amount equal to
the five percent of the market value of
the land calculated as per the circle
rate which shall be credited to the
Consolidated Gaon Fund or the Fund
of the local authority other than the
Gram Panchayat as the case may be. If
the person concerned does not make the
payment of the aforesaid amount within
the period specified in the notice in
R.C. Form-20, the possession of the
land shall be delivered to the Land
Management Committee or the local
authority, as the case may be, together
with the crop:

Provided that where such
person again wrongfully occupies the
same land or any other land within the
jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat or
the local authority as the case may be,
he shall be evicted therefrom forthwith
and possession of the land vacant or
together with the crop thereon shall be
delivered to the Land Management
Committee or the local authority as the
case may be.

(6) The Assistant Collector
shall make an endeavour to conclude
the proceeding under section 67 of the
Code within the period of ninety days
from the date of issuance of the show
cause notice and if the proceeding is
not concluded within such period the
reasons for the same shall be recorded.

(7) Nothing in sub-rule (5)
shall debar the Land Management
Committee or the local authority as the
case may be from prosecuting the
person who encroaches upon the same
land second time in spite of having been
evicted under the Code or the rules,
under section 447 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

(8) There shall be maintained
in the office of each Collector a register
in R.C. Form-21 showing details of the
amount ordered to be realized on
account of damages and compensation
awarded in proceedings under section
67.

(9) A similar register shall also
be
maintained
by
each
tahsildar
showing realization of damages and
compensation
awarded
in
such
proceeding. The entries made in the
register maintained at tahsil shall be
compared with the register maintained
by the Collector to ensure accuracy of
the entries made therein.

(10) A progress report showing
realization
of
damages
and
compensation awarded in proceedings
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under section 67 shall be sent to Board
of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow by the
fifteenth day of April and October every
year. The Board after consolidating the
report so received from the districts
shall send it to the Government.

(11) Nothing in Rules 66 and
67 shall debar any person from
establishment of his right, title or
interest in a court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with the law
for the time being in force in respect of
any matter for which any order has
been made under Section 67 of the
Code."

8. Rule 67 of U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016 as quoted above provides
that the Assistant Collector may make
inquiry on receipt of the information
under Rule 66 of on facts otherwise
coming to his knowledge and proceed
thereafter in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in sub-Rules of he
Rule 67.

9. In view of the aforenoted
provisions, the jurisdiction to prevent
damage, misappropriation and wrongful
occupation of gram panchayat property
vests in the authority described under
Section 67 of the Code. Consequently,
the appropriate remedy available to the
petitioner was to invoke the provisions
of Section 67 of the Code or under the
erstwhile provisions of Section 122B of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

10. It is also the statutory duty of
the authority under the Code to take
action on receipt of information that
any property entrusted or deemed to be
entrusted under the Provisions of the
Code to a gram panchayat or other local
authority
is
damaged
or
misappropriated or where any gram
panchayat or other authority is entitled
to take possession of any land under the
provisions of the Code and such land is
occupied otherwise than in accordance
with the said provisions. Statutory duty
has been cast upon Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti or other authority or the Lekhpal
concerned, as the case may be, to
inform
the
Assistant
Collector
concerned in the manner prescribed.

11. On the receipt of information
under sub-section(1) or otherwise, and
on being satisfied that any property
referred to in sub-section (1) has been
damaged or misappropriated, or any
person is in occupation of any land
referred to in that sub-section in
contravention of the provisions of this
Code, the Assistant Collector shall issue
notice to the person concerned to show
cause why compensation for damage,
misappropriation
or
wrongful
occupation not exceeding the amount
specified in the notice be not recovered
from him and why he should not be
evicted from such land. If the person to
whom a notice has been issued under
sub-section (2) fails to show cause
within the time specified in the notice
or within such extended time as the
Assistant Collector may allow in this
behalf, or if the cause shown is found to
be insufficient, the Assistant Collector
may direct that such person shall be
evicted from the land, and may, for that
11 All. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
purpose, use or cause to be used such
force as may be necessary, and may
direct that the amount of compensation
for damage or misappropriation or for
wrongful occupation as the case may
be, be recovered from such person as
arrears of land revenue. Sub-section 5
of the Section 67 of the Code provides a
remedy to any person who is aggrieved
by an order of the Assistant Collector
under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4),
may be within thirty days from the date
of such order, prefer an appeal to the
Collector. Thus, a complete machinery
for eviction and to prevent damage,
misappropriation
and
wrongful
occupation of gram panchayat property
has been provided under Section 67 of
the Code read with Rule 67 of the
Rules, 2016.

12. Section 206 of the Code
provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in any law for the time in
force, but subject to the provisions of
the Code, no Civil Court shall entertain
any suit, application or proceeding to
obtain a decision or order on any matter
which the State Government, the Board,
any Revenue Court or Revenue Officer
is , by or under this Code, empowered
to determine, decide or dispose of.
Clause (a) of the sub-section 2 of
Section 206 of the Code further
provides that without prejudice to the
generality of the provisions of subsection (10) and save as otherwise
expressly provided by or under this
Code, no Civil Court shall exercise
jurisdiction over any of the matter
specified in the second Schedule.
Clause (b) of sub-section 2 of the Code
further provides that no Court other
than the revenue Court or the revenue
officer specified in the column 3 of the
third schedule shall entertain any suit,
application or proceeding specified in
column 3 thereof. Section 67 of the
Code finds mention in the third
schedule and the competent authority
specified is Assistant Collector against
whose order the first appeal would lie
to the Collector.

13. In view of the clear provisions
as aforenoted, the Assistant Collector
concerned has exclusive jurisdiction to
exercise power to prevent damage,
misappropriation
and
wrongful
occupation of gram panchayat property.

14. Learned Standing Counsel
further contended that under Rule 67,
the petitioner can move an appropriate
application
before
the
Assistant
Collector informing him about the
illegal encroachment made by the
private persons over the public utility
land.

15. Experience shows that large
number of writ petitions are filed
everyday in this Court for somewhat
similar relief, regarding demarcation of
boundaries of agricultural fields, for
issuance of a mandamus restraining the
private respondents from interfering in
their possession, restraining the private
respondents
not
to
alienate
the
immovable property in favour of the
third party and for other similar
relieves. The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(U.P. Act No.8 of 2012) deals with all
sorts of dispute relating to land. Section
230 of the Code repealed as many as 32
enactments mentioned in List-A of First
Schedule including the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950, Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1956, The United Provinces Board
of Revenue Act, 1922 and The U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 etc.

16. The Code, 2006 is designed to
deal with the grievance relating to land
tenures and land revenue and incidental
matters. Chapter-II of the Code, 2006
provides that there would be a division
of the State in which there would be
revenue areas. Chapter III deals with
the Board of Revenue its jurisdiction
and various revenue officers. ChapterIV deals with boundary and boundary
marks. Chapter-V provides the scheme
for maintenance of village records;
Chapter-VI provides revision of village
records; Chapter-VII about ownership
of land other properties; Chapter-VIII
provides management of land and other
properties by Gram Panchayat or other
local authorities; Chapter-IX deals with
tenures;
Chapter-X
provides
Government Lessees; Chapter XI & XII
deals with assessment of land revenue
and collection of that and Chapter-XIII
deals with judicial procedure of the
Revenue Courts.

17. A bird's-eye view of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 shows that the
provisions of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952 have been
incorporated in this Act and various
procedures have been simplified. We
find that without taking recourse to the
remedy available under the Code, 2006
a large number of writ petitions are
filed directly in this Court seeking
reliefs under extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution.
18. The jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is an extraordinary remedy, to be
not invoked or allowed to be invoked
ordinarily, as is found being done
increasingly, leaving very little time for
the High Courts to deal under Article
226
with
issues
really
deserving
consideration
thereunder.
Supreme
Court, as far back as in Rashid Ahmed
Vs. Municipal Board, Kairana AIR
1950 SC 163 and Nain Sukh Das Vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1953
SC 384 held that prerogative writs are
extraordinary remedies intended to be
applied in exceptional cases in which
the ordinary legal remedies are not
adequate but in the last over half
century the said principle appears to
have been forgotten, with the writ
remedy being considered as a cure for
all ordinary ailments also and for which
the ordinary legal remedies under the
civil law are adequate. The same has
resulted in the High Courts being
flooded with writ petitions, the disposal
whereof axiomatically is found to be
taking, in most cases, as much time as
the disposal of an ordinary civil lis, and
which has resulted in the High Courts
11 All. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
175
facing difficulty in providing immediate
relief even in deserving cases in writ
jurisdiction and/or being left with little
time to ponder over the important
constitutional issues coming before it in
the writ jurisdiction. In my humble
view, a time has thus come for the High
Courts to send out a clear message of
the writ remedy being an extraordinary
remedy not available as an alternative
to the remedy already available under
the civil and general laws.

19. Recently the Supreme Court in
the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v.
Union of India and others, reported in
(2014)
8
SCC
470,
has
again
occasioned to consider the matter of
frivolous petitions and need to curb
them with firm hands. The Supreme
Court has also held that exemplary
costs should be imposed.

"191.
The
Indian
judicial
system is grossly afflicted with frivolous
litigation. Ways and means need to be
evolved to deter litigants from their
compulsive obsession towards senseless
and ill-considered claims. One needs to
keep in mind that in the process of
litigation, there is an innocent sufferer
on the other side of every irresponsible
and senseless claim. He suffers longdrawn anxious periods of nervousness
and restlessness, whilst the litigation is
pending without any fault on his part.
He pays for the litigation from out of his
savings (or out of his borrowings)
worrying that the other side may trick
him into defeat for no fault of his. He
spends invaluable time briefing counsel
and preparing them for his claim. Time
which he should have spent at work, or
with his family, is lost, for no fault of
his.
Should
a
litigant
not
be
compensated for what he has lost for no
fault? The suggestion to the legislature
is that a litigant who has succeeded
must be compensated by the one who
has
lost. The suggestion to
the
legislature is to formulate a mechanism
that anyone who initiates and continues
a litigation senselessly pays for the
same. It is suggested that the legislature
should consider the introduction of a
"Code of Compulsory Costs".

192. We should not be taken to
have suggested that the cost of
litigation should be enhanced. It is not
our suggestion that the court fee or
other litigation related costs should be
raised. Access to justice and related
costs should be as free and as low as
possible. What is sought to be redressed
is a habituation to press illegitimate
claims. This practice and pattern is so
rampant that in most cases disputes
which ought to have been settled in no
time at all before the first court of
incidence are prolonged endlessly for
years and years and from court to court
up to the highest Court.

193. This abuse of the judicial
process is not limited to any particular
class of litigants. The State and its
agencies litigate endlessly up to the
highest Court just because of the lack of
responsibility to take decisions. So
much so that we have started to
entertain
the
impression
that
all
administrative and executive decisionmaking are being left to courts just for
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that reason. In private litigation as well,
the litigant concerned would continue
to approach the higher Court, despite
the fact that he had lost in every court
hithertobefore. The effort is not to
discourage a litigant in whose perception
his cause is fair and legitimate. The effort is
only to introduce consequences if the
litigant's perception was incorrect and if his
cause is found to be not fair and legitimate,
he must pay for the same. In the present
setting of the adjudicatory process, a
litigant no matter how irresponsible he is
suffers no consequences. Every litigant,
therefore, likes to take a chance even when
counsel's advice is otherwise.

20. In the present case itself, the
petitioner without taking recourse to the
remedy under the Code, 2006 has
approached this Court for a direction to the
respondent-authorities to get the illegal
encroachments made by the respondent
nos.5 to 9 removed.

21. I find that the present writ petition
is misconceived and ill-advised. Instead of
moving an application under the Code,
2006, which was appropriate remedy, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition,
which in my view is an abuse of process of
law. This Court is overburden with large
number of case and is precious judicial
time is wasted in such type of writ
petitions, which are filed in large numbers,
wherein the petitioners could have obtain
relief or redressed their grievances by
making an appropriate application under
the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In this regard, I am supported by judgment
of this Court in Shravan Kumar Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and 15 others reported in
2022 (147) RD 373 as well as judgment
and order dated 24.11.2022 passed in
Public Interest Litigation No.1892 of 2022
(Pankaj Devi Vs. State Of U.P. and others
)

22. For all the reasons mentioned
above, I find that this writ petition is an
abuse of process of law and meritless.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
competent authority by filing an application
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006. In case, such an application is
filed by the petitioner, the same shall be
decided in accordance with law after
providing opportunity of hearing to all the
concerned parties. It is clarified that this
Court has not adjudicated upon the merits
of the claim as raised by the petitioner in
the present Public Interest Litigation.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.11.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

RERA Appeal No. 67 of 2023
Connected With
RERA Appeal No. 68 of 2023
and other connected cases

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow
 ...Appellant
Versus
Dhruv Kumar Chaturvedi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Umesh Chandra Pandey

Counsel
for
the
Respondent: