Allahabad High Court
Surendra Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. Through Its Special ... on 19 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:206268
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3528 of 2025
Surendra Kumar Dubey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Its Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anand Kumar Shukla, Lok Nath Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to see that order dated 29.8.2025 (Anneuxre.no.2 to the writ petition) passed by him, may be implemented in true and spirit and to ensure that the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 may be evicted from the area of 0.020 hectare out of the total area 0.138 hectare of Gata no. 390kha situated in village Gahli, Pargana Barsatthi, Tehsil Madhiyahun, District Jaunpur;
ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider and pass appropriate order on the representation dated 16.9.2025 made by the petitioner (Annexure. no.3 to the writ petition), within the period to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed by the Tehsildar on 29.8.2025 for ejectment and damages in respect to the plot in question against respondent nos. 4 to 6, under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006, the order has not been given effect on the spot. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of illegal encroachment from the plot in question in pursuance of the order dated 29.8.2025.
4. Learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the instant public interest litigation for implementation of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not maintainable.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for ejectment and damages has been passed by the Tehsildar in respect to the plot in question on 29.8.2025.
7. For execution of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, remedy is provided under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, as such, the instant P.I.L. cannot be maintained for implementation of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
8. The P.I.L. is accordingly dismissed with observation that proper proceeding can be initiated according to the provision contained under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) November 19, 2025 C.Prakash