Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAJENDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gajendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 29383 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11339 (6 July 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. (PIL) 29383 of 2007

1.       Gajendra Kumar,

S/O Late Sri Netram (Freedom Fighter),

resident of Village Bahadurpur Hukmi,

Pargana and Tehsil Barkheda, Distt. Pilibhit.

versus

1. State of U.P. through Secretary

Revenue, U.P. Government, Lucknow.

2. District Magistrate, District Pilibhit.

3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beesalpur, District Pilibhit.

4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Beesalpur, District Pilibhit.

5. Gaon Sabha, Gram Panchayat Bahadurpur Hukmi,

Block Barkheda, Pargana and Tehsil Beesalpur,

District Pilibhit through its Gram Pradhan.

6. Satyapal son of Sri Mewa Ram,

Resident of Village Bahadurpur Hukmi, Pargana and

Tehsil Barkheda, District Pilibhit.

****

Counsel for the Petitioner:   Mr. R.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi Standing Counsel

Mr. V.K. Singh, Standing Counsel    

****

CORAM: Hon'ble H.L.Gokhale,CJ

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J

Dated: July 6, 2007

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per: H.L. Gokhale,CJ

1. Heard Mr. R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel in support of this petition. Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. V.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent no. 5.

2. The petition makes grievance against the encroachment of a village pond by respondent no. 6 herein.

3. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi reported in 2001 (92) R.D. 689.

4. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he has made a representation to the District Magistrate and only request is that the representation be decided at the earliest. Mr. Chaturvedi has no objection to the same.

5. The District Magistrate, Pilibhit will decide the representation about the encroachment on the village pond situated in village Bahadurpur Hukmi within six weeks from today, which shall be after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 6 as well as respondent no. 5.

6. Petition is disposed of.

Date:6.7.2007

RK/ (Chief Justice)

         (R.K. Agrawal,J)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.