SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which calls for our answer is as to whether the Respondents have got any authority to construct Sulabh Sauchalaya on the Sahan Land of the petitioner? .

(2.) The petitioner asserts, inter alia, that he is resident of Village Mahen, District Deoria, where he has his own house and some agricultural land. That on 29.12.1989 his younger brother informed him that Respondent No. 8, Gaon Sabha of Village Mahen, District Deoria, in collusion with Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 is trying to build Sulabh Sauchalaya on his Sahan lands; that on receiving the aforementioned information he left Allahabad, went to his village and learnt that a construction has been raised on his Sahan land; that he contacted Respondent No. 8 and requested him to remove the c&nstruction already made on his lands, but Respondent No. 8 refused; thereafter he approached all concerned who gave evasive answers though Respondent No. 2 directed Respondent No. 8 to take inspection on the spot and report back to him, but even that was not done and hence this writ petition. .

(3.) No,counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that in the facts and circumstances 'mentioned as above, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for namely for issuance of mandamus to remove the illegal constructions from the Sahan land of the petitioner and to stay raising of any further construction thereon. Sri H.R. Misra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and 9, contended that since the Gaon Sabha has not come up with any defence denying the averments made by the petitioner, this court may grant any such relief, which may be considered appropriate.