PYARE LAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/2441/2025 · 2025-03-12
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 127570 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 127570 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15277-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2441 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pyare Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Verma,Shubham Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. We have perused our earlier order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Writ - C No. 705 of 2025 which reads as under:-
"Grievance of the petitioner is that water-tank is being constructed on Gata No. 159/2 situated at Village Mandauli, Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad, District Lucknow, which is adjacent to the petitioner?s agricultural land. Submission is that another Gata No. 581 was earmarked for construction of the said water-tank, but it is not being consitructed on the said Gata. Further submission is that construction of the water-tank would lead to a situation wherein water-level of the petitioner?s agricultural field will go down.
Learned counsel for Gaon Sabha says that water-tank was not constructed on Gata No. 581, as there is a railway line by its side and it would be difficult to construct water-tank, therefore, it is being constructed on Gata No. 159/2, which is a banjar land. These are matters purely within the domain of the Authorities. The petitioner should approach the concerned Authorities, at whose behest contruction of the water-tank is taking place, who may look into the matter as to whether any serious prejudice is being caused to the petitioner and whether it is possible to redress the grievance. With these observations, this petition is
disposed of."
3. We fail to understand as to how a second writ petition
is maintainable, as, we have clearly observed that these matters are purely within the domain of the Authorities.
4. We disposed of this writ petition also on the same terms. . (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 12.3.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench