Sangeeta Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1614 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sangeeta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1.In compliance of the order of this Court dated 27.09.2023 instruction dated 12.10.2023 has been placed before this Court by Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents which is taken on record.

2.Mr. R. C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents on the basis of instruction dated 12.10.2023, submitted that plot No.253/539 area

0.0870 hectare is recorded as pond in clause-6 of the revenue record. He further submitted that revenue team was constituted and inspection was conducted in respect to the plot No.253/539 and it has been found that there is no encroachment over the pond in question. He further submitted that petitioner is sitting Pradhan of the village in question and husband of the petitioner namely Ajay Kumar Bhartiya was present when the inspection was conducted. He further submitted that husband of the petitioner was satisfied and signed the documents prepared by the authorities. He further submitted that there is no encroachment over the pond land, as such the instant P.I.L. which has been filed by the petitioner being, sitting pradhan is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with cost against the petitioner. He further submitted that petition has been filed by the pradhan in the personal capacity through private counsel, which is violation of the provisions contained under Section 72 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶3I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶4There is no dispute about the fact that plot in question is recorded as pond.

¶5The instruction send by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karchhana, Prayagraj will be relevant, which is as follows: "

ममनननयउचचनयमयमलयइलमहमबमदममययजजतजनहहतयमहचकमससखयम1614/2023

ससगनतमददवनबनममसटदटऑफयय०पन०व4

अनयममइनसटटकशनदमजखलकरमयदजमनदकद

समबनधमममम०नयमयमलयदमरमपमररतआददशहदनमसक27.09.2023

कदअननपमलनमम

इसटटकशनदमजखलहकयदजमनदहदतनआखयमहनमनवततहह-

यमचनदमरममम०नयमयमलयममउपरयकजनहहतयमहचकमससखयम1614/2023 ममपमररत

हदनमसक27/09/2023

कयहनमनआददशपमररतहकयमगयमथम।

¶1Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state-respondents and Mr.Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha.

¶2In view of the prayer made in the writ petition, instruction is required from the State. 3 Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is directed to obtain instruction in the matter within two weeks.

¶4Put up this case as fresh on 13.10.2023.

उपरयककदसमबनधममसमदरअवगतकरमनमहहहकगमम-ककजधयमरम, परगनम-अरहल, तहसनल-करछनम, जनपद-

पयमगरमजकदगमटमससखयम-253/539 रकबम-0.0870 हद०

तमलमबकदखमतदममशदणन-6(1)

दजरहह।जजसककजमसचरमजसवटनमदमरमककगई।सथलनयजमसच

ममपमयमगयमहकगमटमससखयम-253/539

रकबम0.0870

हद०अहभलदखनयखततननशदणन-6(1)

तमलमबकदखमतमससखयम-330

ममअहभलदखखततननममअसहकतहह।तमलमबमतकदपर

खमलनहहतथमजलसदआचछमहदतहह।हकसनपकमरकमअहतकमणनहहहह।जमसचकदसमय

यमहचकमकतरससगनतमददवनकदपहतअजयकनममरभमरतनयमउपससथतथद,

जयउककमयरवमहनसद

ससतनषथदतथमकमयरववजतपरअपनमहसतमकरबनमयदहह।कमयरववजतककछमयमपहतससलगहह।

अतहमम०नयमयमलयसदपमथरनमहहहकजनहहतयमहचकमससखयम-1614/2023

हनरसतकरनद

कककवपमकरम।

ह०अप० (

रमजदशकनममरशनवमसतव) उपजजलमजधकमरन, करछनम, पयमगरमज।"

¶6In view of the fact mentioned in the instruction as well as proceeding annexed along with instruction, no interference is required in the matter.

¶7Writ petition is dismissed with observation that petitioner should follow procedure as prescribed under Section 72 of U .P. Revenue Code, 2006 before initiating any legal proceeding. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 PS* High Court of Judicature at Allahabad