Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 173917 (ALL)

VASIM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/10420/2025 · 2025-11-07

S Q H Rizvi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10420 of 2025 Court No. - 20 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Suresh Chandra Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Sabha/ respondent No. 5. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of directions to the opposite parties/ respondents to remove the encroachment including the pavement laid by the opposite party No. 6 over the plot of land having Gata No. 887/ area 0.1980 hectares, at Village- Bharbharva (Modlaha), Paragana- Fakharpur, Tehsil- Mahasi, District- Bahraich. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order under Section 67 of the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil- Mahasi, District- Bahraich on 17.05.2025 in a Case bearing No. 6839/2024 (Gaon Sabha Versus Hanif) but the same has not yet been enforced. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents on the basis of instructions dated 13.10.2025 provided to him by Tehsildar, Tehsil- Mahasi, District- Bahraich has stated at Bar that the aforesaid order dated 17.05.2025 passed under Section 67 of the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been challenged by the respondent No. 6 namely Hanif under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Surendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Vasim .....Petitioner(s) State of U. P. through Principal Secretary Department of Revenue; And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) the Court of Chief Revenue Officer, District- Bahraich. 5. In view of the proposed order being passed, notice to the respondent No. 6 is hereby dispensed with. 6. Taking into consideration the fact, as stated above, that the aforesaid order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been challenged in a statutory appeal, no direction, as prayed for by the petitioner, is required to be passed by this Court in the instant writ petition, at this stage. 7. In view of the above, the petition is consigned to records. November 7, 2025 (Manoj K.) WRIC No. 10420 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench