AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 184 wordsManoj Kumar Gupta CJ
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed ostensibly in public interest alleging that the private respondents have taken illegal possession of the land which was earlier leased out to one Swami Satyanand Giri by the Gazette Notification No.27.04.1921 for a period of 99 years and, despite repeated complaints, the State respondents are not taking any action in the matter.
It is stated that name of Niranjani Akhada is recorded over land measuring 4.4150 hectares only but it had taken possession of additional forest land which was earlier leased out to Swami Satyanand Giri.
The issues raised in the PIL require a factual inquiry and, therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation before respondent no.5 along with attested copy of the instant order. In the event any such representation is made, the same shall be decided by respondent no.5 after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned, in accordance with law.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.