Asha Ram v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. For this reasons aforesaid, this court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.] RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at…
Judgment
Petitioner :- Asha Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Srivastava Ram Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Shri Ram Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4.
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had made a representation to the state respondents alleging that certain persons have illegally encroached upon Gata No. 108/140/ 0.053 hectares and Gata No.110/142/0.053, situated at Village Gopiyarpur, Pargana, Tehsil & District Gonda and had filed a petition before this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.628 of 2024, wherein this Court had directed the petitioners to move an application under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code 2006 before the competent authority and further observed that in case the application was made within the time prescribed, the authority was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law.
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the representation was moved by them within the time prescribed, but opposite party no.3 has not decided the same and consequently, in the present petition, a prayer has been made to direct opposite party no.3 to decide the representation dated
13.08.2024.
Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the considered view that it is on the assertion made by the counsel for the petitioners, the liberty was granted to them to move the appropriate authority under Section 67 of the Revenue Code. In case, the order of this Court dated 26/07/24 has not been complied with, the petitioner has sufficient efficacious remedy of filing a contempt petition but once after due consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner, appropriate directions have been passed by this Court then no occasion arises to pass the same order yet again.
This court is of the considered view that in case the prayer of the petitioner is allowed then this Court would be passing orders to the respondents, to decide the representation thereby repeating the previous order dated 26/07/24, and accordingly, I find that such orders are already existing and for the same grievance, a second petition would not be maintainable.
For this reasons aforesaid, this court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.] RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 22 Aug 2025. The bench was ALOK MATHUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.