Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARUN PRASAD AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arun Prasad And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 50095 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16279 (19 September 2006)

 

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50095 of 2006

Arun Prasad and another vs. State of U.P. and others

***

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Mishra

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. G.C. Upadhyay, S.C.

***

Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,CJ

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

By this writ petition, filed as a public interest litigation, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to remove entire illegal construction, possession of the respondents and other persons over the land belonging to dam in question.

The petitioner has alleged that in the years 1965 and 1969, the land belonging to dam has been allotted to the private persons and their names have also been entered in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment of land belonging to dam was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He submits that direction be issued to get the illegal construction removed and dispossessing the private respondents.

The alleged allotment as referred in the writ petition having taken in 1965 and 1969, about more than 40 years ago, we are afraid that the writ petition, at the instance of the writ petitioner for dispossessing such allottees cannot be entertained. It is open for the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law as permissible for removing the encroachers and the illegal allottees.

With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dated:19.9.2006

RK/


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.