RAM SURESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Ms. Manjusa Kapil, holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State -respondents and Sri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.5, which is Gram Panchayat Dhawa, Post Chinhat, Pergana, Tehsil and District Lucknow.

(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has informed that controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 29.4.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3560 (MB) of 2014 [Daya Ram and three others Vs. State of U.P. and four others]. He states that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that no application for declaration under Section 123(1) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act can be maintained by the petitioner and the right cannot be claimed as actionable claim for seeking declaration.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner does not dispute that in Daya Ram's case the order dated 29.4.2014 has been passed. The order dated 29.4.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3560 (MB) of 2014 in its entirety quoted herein below: