In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, led by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, delivered a judgment in a series of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), including PIL No. 1050 of 2024, filed by Ambika Yadav and others. These PILs challenged the construction of water tanks and RCC centres on land reserved for public purposes, such as Charagaah (grazing land), Khalihaan (threshing ground), and Naveen Parti (newly allocated land) in several villages of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners argued that such constructions violated the intended use of the land and that proper legal procedures had not been followed in approving these projects.
The case saw appearances from a wide range of legal counsels. Advocates Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, Madan Mohan Srivastava, and others represented the petitioners, while the respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh, were defended by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, assisted by Chief Standing Counsel J.N. Maurya and other legal representatives.
Legal Issues Involved:
The core issue before the court was whether the land reserved for specific public purposes could be used for other public interests, such as constructing water tanks and RCC centres, without violating the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioners emphasized that the nature of the land reserved for public use could not be altered without following due legal process. They relied heavily on Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which restricts the creation of Bhumidhari rights (ownership rights) on such land.
The respondents, however, argued that the constructions were in the larger interest of the villagers and that only a small portion of the land was being used. The defense also pointed out that the constructions did not violate any rights under the U.P. Revenue Code, as no Bhumidhari rights were being created and the land would continue to serve its original public purpose.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing the PILs, made important observations regarding the use of land reserved for public purposes. Justice Shamshery stated that even if only a small part of such land is being used for another public interest project, like water tanks, it is essential to foster consensus among the villagers. The Court noted that without proper communication and understanding among the village community, such projects might face opposition, as evidenced by the current PILs.
Justice Shamshery remarked:
“Even a very small part of an area, reserved for a public purpose, must foster a larger consensus among the villagers so that they may not approach the Court to oppose the public cause.”
The Court further held that since the constructions were in the interest of the public and only a minor part of the land was being used, the projects did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It emphasized that the land would still serve its intended public purpose and that the petitioners had not demonstrated any malafide intentions behind the State’s actions.
In some cases, the Court directed the authorities to consider relocating the construction to a less central part of the land to preserve its original use, particularly in cases where the land was used for grazing or other community activities. Additionally, the Court issued instructions for training programs to educate village heads (Pradhans) about their roles and responsibilities to avoid such disputes in the future.
