HEMANT KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE LKO. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIC/5701/2025 · 2025-07-01
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 144837 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 144837 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36873-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5701 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hemant Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner seeks disposal of a representation dated 17.04.2025 submitted to the District Magistrate, Raebareli. However, on being asked as to under which provision of the statute or law such representation has been made, he was unable to point out any such provision. He, however, submitted that petitioner had moved an application for removal of encroachment on Banjar land but an incorrect report was submitted by opposite party no.7 that the encroachment had been removed. The petitioner then filed a public interest litigation before this Court wherein he was ordered to pursue the remedy under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In these proceedings, opposite party no.7 submitted a report that the petitioner himself along with others was the encroacher. According to the petitioner, this was an incorrect report. On being asked as to what happened to the proceedings under Section 67, learned counsel submitted that those proceedings have come to an end. He has invited our attention to some of the orders passed under the said provision which have been annexed with the petition. Annexure no.9 is an order dated 07.11.2024 passed against the petitioner who was the defendant in the said proceedings. On being asked as to whether the said
order has been challenged, learned counsel for the petitioner could not inform us in this regard. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. Petitioner is cautioned not to file such a petition in future.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench