JEEVAN LAL BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents nos. 1 to 5 and Sri B.L. Mishra, Advocate who has filed an application on behalf of six persons Chandrakant Bajpai and others contending that the continued use of the well is in the interest of the entire locality and the same has also been recently repaired. It is in the use of all the villagers of the locality. He, therefore, submits that the offer made by the petitioner to get it demolished at his own expense, is not acceptable and is against the interest of the villagers.?

(2.) The petitioner contends that the well is situated over Plot No.395 which is on the private tenure holding of the petitioner and as such the petitioner has every right to control the operation of the said well.

(3.) From the record it has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has taken notice of the fact that the well had gone into disuse and consequently since it felt within the private holding of the petitioner the same should be allowed to be demolished if the other villagers do not have any objection to the same.