Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P.

And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

MEMORIAL ON THE CASE

Dayaram Yadav and 2 others.………….….……..Appellant

Vs

State of UP and 6 others……..……………..…..Respondent

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Prem Chandra Abu Talib Ali

(Associate Professor) B.A.LL.B. (IXth Semester)

Enrolment Number:1905000000142

SARDAR PATEL SUBHARTI INSTITUTE OF LAW

SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 1

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

At the very outset, I would like to pay thanks to the almighty God. It gives me immense
pleasure to acknowledge and to say thanks to the ones who helped me throughout the
course of my work. I am really thankful to our respected subject teacher under whose
learned and scholarly guidance the present work has been completed. She helped us in a
passive way. She gave me moral support and guided me in different matters regarding the
topic. She had been very kind and patient while suggesting me the outlines of this Project
and correcting my doubts.

I express my sincere gratitude’s to, Dr. Prem Chandra (Associate Professor) granting
permission of proper under the above-mentioned supervision.

I thank him for overall supports. Constructive suggestions have always been soothing and
desired effect, hence it my duty to express my gratitude for his constant support and
encouragement.

I want to pay my sincere thanks to Dean, Faculty of Law, all the teachers of Sardar Patel
Subharti Institute of Law, Swami Vivekananda Subharti University. I want to thank
all my friends who helped me in completing my work. Last, but not the least, my thanks to
all who have helped directly or indirectly in the completion of my work.

Abu Talib Ali

B.A.LL.B. IXth Semester

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 2

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

In the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

Dayaram Yadav and 2 others

Vs

State of UP and 6 others on 6 May , 2016

Memorial on Behalf of the Petitioner

NAME- ABU TALIB ALI

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 3

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S No. Subject Matter Page No.

1. List of Abbreviations 6

2. Index of Authorities 7

(i) List of Cases Cited

(ii) Books & Articles
(iii) Statutes Referred

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 8

4. Statement of Facts 9

5. Issues Raised 10

6. Arguments 11

7. Prayer 12

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 4

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

DIVISION BENCH

Hon’ble Cheif Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud

Hon’ble Justice Yashwant Verma

EQUIVALENT CITATION
2023:AHC:187847

AUTHOR OF JUDGEMENT

Hon’ble Justice Yashwant Verma

DATE OF JUDGEMENT

6 May, 2016

CASE:

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 20672 of 2016

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 5

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

AIR - All India Report

Anr - Another

HC - High Court

Hon’ble - Honorable

Sec - Section

S.no - Serial Number

Vs. - Versus

Govt. - Government

Art. - Article
AHC - Allahabad High Court

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 6

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFFERED

(i) R.R. Maurya's Uttar Pradesh Land laws published by General Law
Publications
(ii) D.P. Singh’s Land Laws

CASE LAW

(i) Om Prakash Varma & Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 20 May
2014
(ii) Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs Kamla Devi2 and Jagpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

STATUTES REFFERED

(i) The Constitution Of India, 1949

(ii) Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(iii) U P Revenue Code Rules, 2006

WEBLINKS REFFERED

(i) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125179559/

LIST OF JOUNALS REFERRED

(i) All India Reporters

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 7

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION

The appellant appeals to this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India, 1949.

____________________________________________________________________________________

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 8

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

(2)in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The writ petition has highlighted the fact of non-implementation of orders or, as the
case may be, failure to conclude the proceedings which have been initiated under
Section 122-B.
 We may note, at this stage, that Section 122-B has now been succeeded by the
provisions of Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code-2006 which has recently
come into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
 The petitioners have annexed two lists at Annexures-14 and 15 to the writ petition.
The first list contains a tabulated chart in relation to village Gharwaspur where orders
have been passed under Section 122-B, which according to the petitioners, have not
been enforced.
 The second list contains a tabulated statement in relation to villages Deoria and
Baruiya. All three villages fall in the district of Mirzapur.
 Since the Division Bench has already laid down comprehensive guidelines and has
issued directions to the State Government in Om Prakash Verma (supra), the issue
which now really remains is the lack of administrative will to secure enforcement of
the directions.
 This is a serious matter which must necessarily be taken up by the Court. We may
note that the provisions of Section 67 and 136 of the U P Revenue Code, 2006
sufficiently empower the respondents to rid public utility lands from encroachments.
 Rule 67 (6) of the U P Revenue Code Rules, 2006 mandates that the Assistant
Collector shall conclude the enquiry under Section 67 within 90 days of the issuance
of the show cause notice and in case of failure to adhere to the time frame, the
authority is obliged to record reasons.
 Yet this Court on a daily basis is deluged by petitions alleging failure to act against
encroachments or apathy in implementing orders of eviction.
 The obligation to preserve land meant for public utility purposes rests upon the State.
Action against encroachments cannot be left to depend upon individuals instituting
legal proceedings to secure enforcement of the mandate cast by Sections 67 and 136.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 9

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

ISSUES RAISED

1. Does Section 67 and 136 of the U P Revenue Code, 2006 sufficiently

empower the respondents ?

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 10

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

ARGUMENT

1. ISSUE 1: Does Section 67 and 136 of the U P Revenue Code, 2006

sufficiently empower the respondents?
Section 67 and 136 of the U P Revenue Code, 2006 sufficiently empower
the respondents to rid public utility lands from encroachments. Rule 67 (6)
of the U P Revenue Code Rules, 2006 mandates that the Assistant Collector
shall conclude the enquiry under Section 67 within 90 days of the issuance
of the show cause notice and in case of failure to adhere to the time frame,
the authority is obliged to record reasons. Yet this Court on a daily basis is
deluged by petitions alleging failure to act against encroachments or apathy
in implementing orders of eviction. The obligation to preserve land meant
for public utility purposes rests upon the State. Action against
encroachments cannot be left to depend upon individuals instituting legal
proceedings to secure enforcement of the mandate cast by Sections 67 and
136.The Principal Secretary (Revenue) is directed to highlight the mandate
of Rule 67 (6) referred to above. Thirdly, where orders have been passed
under Section 67 (or as the case may be in earlier proceedings under Section
122-B), it is necessary that compliance of orders should be duly made under
the applicable provisions of law.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 11

 Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

PRAYER

Therefore it may be placed this on hon’ble court in the light of Facts presented, Issue raised,
Argument and Authorities cited, The counsel for Respondent humbly pray before this Hon’ble
Court, to kindly adjust that-

The appeal filed before this on Hon’ble Court should be quashed.

And / or

Pass any order in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

Abu Talib Ali

( Counsel for the Petitioner)

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 12