High Court

Heard Shri Mohammad Masood Raza, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate who accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.6. The petitioner has approached this Court claiming the following reliefs :- "1. Issue a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus for a directive, instructing O.P. to expeditiously decide the case no.536/2019 and 537/2019 pending before him under Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006.

2. Issue a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite party no.1 to call for a report from opposite party no.2 to submit a detail report as to how many cases have been decided pending opposite party no.3 to 5 in last five years pertaining to the removal of illegal encroachment situated at Gram Sabha Gaydeeh.

3. Issue a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the O.P.No.1 & 2 to take approach action against the guilty officials and revenue authorities who are found to be involved in the illegal and unlawful act in conclusion with the encroachers. " The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since a number of cases are engaging the attention of the revenue courts which are not being decided within a reasonable time as a consequence that encroachments have become galore and since the time bound action is not taken nor the decisions are rendered by the courts concerned, is compounding the situations and making the matters worse. It is in this context that the petitioner has approached this Court and in paragraphs 3 to 13, the petitioner has attempted to delineate his case. For the ease of reference, the aforesaid paragraphs are being reproduced as under :- "3. That through this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus for a directive, instructing O.P.No.4 to expeditiously decide the case no.536/2019 and 537/2019 pending before him under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

4. That furthermore, the petitioner prays for issuance a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the O.P.No.1 to call for a report from opposite party no.2 to submit a detail report as to how many cases have been decided pending before opposite party no.3 to 5 in last five years pertaining to the removal of illegal encroachment situated at Gram Sabha Gaydeeh.

5. That the petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the O.P.No.1 & 2 to take appropriate action against the guilty officials and revenue authorities who are found to be involved in the illegal and unlawful act in collusion with the encroachers.

6. That the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors AIR 2001 SC 3215 has observed that no encroachment can be made by a person over public utility land that means it was declared that encroachments on public utility land are impermissible.

7. That in another landmark case, Jagpal Singh & ors. Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2011 SC 1123), the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the principle of disallowing unauthorised constructions on public utility land and also relying on the abovementioned judgment directed for removal of unauthorised constructions from public utility land.

8. That as per the law laid down in S.P.Gulta Vs. Union of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87, any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the construction or the law and seek encroachment of such public duty and the observance of such constitutional or legal provision.

9. That the petitioner approach the opposite parties no plural number occasions and requested them to conduct a detailed enquiry pertaining to the encroachment on public utility land and also requested to expedite the proceedings either registered after the enquiry or filed prior to the enquiry, that comes in the Gram Sabha category land, situated at Gram Sabha Gaydeeh, Tehseel- Ultraula, District Balrampur.

10. That on failing to act on the requests made by the petitioner, petitioner gave fresh representation 7.6.2024 to the opposite parties and further prayed to remove the encroachment and expedite the proceedings. The representations dated 7.6.2024 are being filed collectively and marked as Annexure No.1 to this petition.

11. That the petitioner applied for certified copy of the documents concerning to the Case No.536/2019 and 537/2019 but he was refused to be given that he is not party to the proceedings, while rejecting his folio, petitioner was neither given anything in written nor his folio was returned to him. That is the reason petitioner could not provide much documents pertaining to the instant petition.

12. That there is a Government order dated 9.6.2014 whereby District Magistrates in the entire State were instructed to remove the illegal encroachment from the public utility land at the priority, is attached as Annexure No.2.

13. That the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly asserted that encroachments on public utility land are unacceptable. The specific cases filed under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 seems to have either been compromised by the Gram Sabha or the concerned authorities are not paying any heed towards by the Government Order dated 9.6.2014 as wellas the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal as well as Hinch Lal Tiwari cases, this petition is being filed." Having taken note of the aforesaid pleadings, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he is party to the proceedings of which reference has been made, to which he candidly answered that he is not a party. Since as per the case of the petitioner, the encroachments are not being removed, which is affecting the rights of many persons including the petitioner, it was also put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petition has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation, to which he submits that it is not so. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and reply given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, apparently the petition filed by the petitioner is completely misconceived. No such order can be passed inasmuch as the reliefs which have been claimed are all vague. There is nothing supporting to substantiate the averments made in the petition and the allegations are roving in nature which cannot be the countenanced by this court in a writ petition, where neither personal right of the petitioner is affected and moreover it is not a PIL. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Shukla

Heard Shri Mohammad Masood Raza, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate who accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.6. The petitioner has approached this Court claiming the following reliefs :- "1. Issue a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus for a directive, instructing O.P. to expeditiously decide the case no.536/2019 and 537/2019 pending before him under Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006.

2. Issue a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite party no.1 to call for a report from opposite party no.2 to submit a detail report as to how many cases have been decided pending opposite party no.3 to 5 in last five years pertaining to the removal of illegal encroachment situated at Gram Sabha Gaydeeh.

3. Issue a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the O.P.No.1 & 2 to take approach action against the guilty officials and revenue authorities who are found to be involved in the illegal and unlawful act in conclusion with the encroachers. " The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since a number of cases are engaging the attention of the revenue courts which are not being decided within a reasonable time as a consequence that encroachments have become galore and since the time bound action is not taken nor the decisions are rendered by the courts concerned, is compounding the situations and making the matters worse. It is in this context that the petitioner has approached this Court and in paragraphs 3 to 13, the petitioner has attempted to delineate his case. For the ease of reference, the aforesaid paragraphs are being reproduced as under :- "3. That through this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus for a directive, instructing O.P.No.4 to expeditiously decide the case no.536/2019 and 537/2019 pending before him under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

4. That furthermore, the petitioner prays for issuance a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the O.P.No.1 to call for a report from opposite party no.2 to submit a detail report as to how many cases have been decided pending before opposite party no.3 to 5 in last five years pertaining to the removal of illegal encroachment situated at Gram Sabha Gaydeeh.

5. That the petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ, order or command in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the O.P.No.1 & 2 to take appropriate action against the guilty officials and revenue authorities who are found to be involved in the illegal and unlawful act in collusion with the encroachers.

6. That the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors AIR 2001 SC 3215 has observed that no encroachment can be made by a person over public utility land that means it was declared that encroachments on public utility land are impermissible.

7. That in another landmark case, Jagpal Singh & ors. Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2011 SC 1123), the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the principle of disallowing unauthorised constructions on public utility land and also relying on the abovementioned judgment directed for removal of unauthorised constructions from public utility land.

8. That as per the law laid down in S.P.Gulta Vs. Union of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87, any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the construction or the law and seek encroachment of such public duty and the observance of such constitutional or legal provision.

9. That the petitioner approach the opposite parties no plural number occasions and requested them to conduct a detailed enquiry pertaining to the encroachment on public utility land and also requested to expedite the proceedings either registered after the enquiry or filed prior to the enquiry, that comes in the Gram Sabha category land, situated at Gram Sabha Gaydeeh, Tehseel- Ultraula, District Balrampur.

10. That on failing to act on the requests made by the petitioner, petitioner gave fresh representation 7.6.2024 to the opposite parties and further prayed to remove the encroachment and expedite the proceedings. The representations dated 7.6.2024 are being filed collectively and marked as Annexure No.1 to this petition.

11. That the petitioner applied for certified copy of the documents concerning to the Case No.536/2019 and 537/2019 but he was refused to be given that he is not party to the proceedings, while rejecting his folio, petitioner was neither given anything in written nor his folio was returned to him. That is the reason petitioner could not provide much documents pertaining to the instant petition.

12. That there is a Government order dated 9.6.2014 whereby District Magistrates in the entire State were instructed to remove the illegal encroachment from the public utility land at the priority, is attached as Annexure No.2.

13. That the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly asserted that encroachments on public utility land are unacceptable. The specific cases filed under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 seems to have either been compromised by the Gram Sabha or the concerned authorities are not paying any heed towards by the Government Order dated 9.6.2014 as wellas the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal as well as Hinch Lal Tiwari cases, this petition is being filed." Having taken note of the aforesaid pleadings, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he is party to the proceedings of which reference has been made, to which he candidly answered that he is not a party. Since as per the case of the petitioner, the encroachments are not being removed, which is affecting the rights of many persons including the petitioner, it was also put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petition has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation, to which he submits that it is not so. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and reply given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, apparently the petition filed by the petitioner is completely misconceived. No such order can be passed inasmuch as the reliefs which have been claimed are all vague. There is nothing supporting to substantiate the averments made in the petition and the allegations are roving in nature which cannot be the countenanced by this court in a writ petition, where neither personal right of the petitioner is affected and moreover it is not a PIL. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Shukla