PAWAN KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. REVENUE LKO. AND 5 OTHERS
WRIC/10085/2024 · 2025-01-03
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 169083 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 169083 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:493-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10085 of 2024 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Pandey,Prakash Chandra Baranwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. On 26.11.2024 we had passed the following order:-
"1. Heard.
2. Learned standing counsel has instructions to inform the Court that so far as the petitioner's Gata bearing No. 374 and 388 are concerned the Panchayat Bhawan is not being construction on his land, however, he does not have instructions as to whether it is being constructed on Gata No. 377, 378 and 390, as, it is the contention of petitioner that Gata No. 377 is chak marg, Gata No. 378 is Khalihann and Gata No. 390 is Ghoor Gaddha whereas the proposal for construction of Panchayat Bhawan is on Gata No. 380 which is abadi land.
3. List in the 1st week of January, 2025, as fresh. Fresh instructions be souight."
3. Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has received instructions to the effect that Panchayat Bhawan is being constructed on part of Gata No. 380 which is Abadi land and part of Gata No. 378 which is recorded as 'Khalihan'.
4. As the petitioner's land is not being affected, therefore, we proceed no further on the question as to whether such construction was permissible in respect of Gata No. 378 and 380 but leave this question to be considered by the concerned authorities.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that demarcation proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of petitioner's Gata No. 374 and 388 are still pending.
6. Let the S.D.M. concerned conclude the proceedings at the earliest, say, within a period of one month if there is no legal
impediment in this regard.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. . (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 3.1.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench