Jaiprakash v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2514 of 2023 Petitioner :- Jaiprakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awashesh Kumar,Kalp Dev Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.5-gaon sabha and Sri Chandra Prakash Yadav, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

¶2The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to remove the encroachment of the Gaon Sabha Land of Araji No. 203, 205, 523/348, 256, 194 and 230 recorded as pond and Araji No. 01 recorded as drainage and Araji No. 232 and 321 recorded as Banjar situated at Maharajaganj, Pargana, Tehsil and District Ghazipur from the illegal encroacher as the earliest. ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application dated 13.09.2023 within stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court. iii. To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. To award the cost of petition in favour of petitioner."

¶3The earlier P.I.L. No.1948/2023 filed on behalf of the petitioner, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.8.2023 which runs as follows:- "Heard Sri Awashesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha (respondent no.4) and perused the material available on record.

2.The present petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief :- "i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to remove the encroachment of the Gaon Sabha Land of Araji No.203, 205, 523/348, 265, 194 and 230 recorded as pond and Araji No.01 recorded as drainage and Araji No.232 and 321 recorded as Banjar situated at Maharajganj, Pargana, Tehsil and District Ghazipur from the illegal encroacher as the earliest. ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 to decide the application dated 21.6.2023 within stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶3Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has moved any application or has taken any legal measures regarding removal of the encroachment from the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. He further submits that the petitioner has also not filed any document to substantiate his allegations as made in the petition.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions as contained in the U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

¶5The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal measures regarding the removal of encroachments from the public utility land, in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006."

¶4The earlier P.I.L. filed by the petitioner was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal remedy for removal of encroachment as provided under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶5Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 24.8.2023, petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate for removal of the encroachment but no steps have been taken by the authorities.

¶6Mr. C.P. Yadav, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that 2nd P.I.L. for the same cause of action, cannot be entertained. They further submitted that earlier P.I.L. has been dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

¶7I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶8There is no dispute about the fact that earlier P.I.L. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

¶9In view of the dismissal of the earlier P.I.L. the 2nd P.I.L. cannot be entertained in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10The P.I.L. is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.11.2023/C.Prakash High Court of Judicature at Allahabad