NILESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents for time bound compliance of order dtd. 30/11/2021 passed in Case No. 03233 of 2019 in computerized case No. T-201904230303233 under Sec. 67 of U.P. Reenuce Coe in Gaon Sabha v. Ram Achal by Tehsildar Manda, Ayodhya District Ayodhya, Tehsil Bikapur. In the said case, the proceedings have been initiated at the behest of the villagers in which the petitioner is also one of the complainants. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the authority to decide the same matter expeditiously would not be maintainable at the behest of the petitioner who is only a complainant. It has further been stated that it is on the complaint of the villagers including the petitioner petitioner that cognizance have been taken and proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are underway. 5. Accordingly, this Court finds substance in the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel in as much as the status of the petitioner is of only a complainant and he cannot prosecute the said case as an interested party. Undoubtedly in case the petitioner is aggrieved then it was open for him to move appropriate proceedings for eviction of the illegal encroachers instead he has sought to move State machinery by filing a petition U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. Once an application U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code is filed then it was upon the competent authority to consider and decide the same and pass appropriate orders where the petitioner as a complainant has no role to play. 6. Needless to say the authorities are competent to protect the Government land and will take all steps for the necessary compliance of the same. 7. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, (2012) 4 SCC 407, with regard to locus of a complainant has held as under :