LORIK YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-215
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 07,2018

LORIK YADAV Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and 4 Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) A reply to the affidavit of the Collector Mau has been filed by counsel for the petitioner today and the same is taken on record.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents revenue authorities to remove the alleged encroachments made over Plot No. 144, which is recorded as Nala in revenue records.
(3.) An affidavit sworn by the Tehsildar, Mohammadabad Gohna, District-Mau was filed stating that encroachments over Nala had been removed on 26.3.2018, i.e., previous to filing of the writ petition. However, the said statement made in the affidavit of the Tehsildar was contested by the petitioner and a counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit of the Tehsildar were incorrect. Relying on the said counter affidavit, this Court vide its order dated 23.7.2018 directed the Collector, Mau, i.e., respondent No. 2 to get the disputed plot surveyed in his presence by the revenue authorities after giving notice to the petitioner and submit a report to the Court regarding encroachments over Plot No. 144. In pursuance to the order dated 23.7.2018, an affidavit sworn by the Collector, Mau, was filed in this Court narrating the details regarding the survey done in his presence. The aforesaid affidavit of the Collector also contains the photographs, as evidence, in support of the statement made in the affidavit. It was stated in the aforesaid affidavit of the Collector that even though there were no permanent constructions or tube-well over the plot, but the said plot, which was recorded as Nala in the revenue records, was in the shape of plain and consequently the concerned Block Development Officer was directed to restore the Nala to its original shape. The averments made in the affidavit of the Collector, Mau, that there were no encroachments over Plot No. 144 was also disputed by the counsel for the petitioner and consequently the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit bringing the relevant facts on record.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.