Allahabad High Court
Karunesh Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 13 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20733 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 311 of 2025 Petitioner :- Karunesh Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Munishwar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Land Management Committee.
2.The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief:
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State Respondents to comply the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Class/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Machhlishahar, District-Jaunpur/respondent No.4 dated 14.12.2023 and ensure the removal of the illegal encroachment of the respondent Nos.6 to 9 Upon the pond situated over plot no.721, area 0.490 hectare in village-Sarai Chauhan, Post-Bhilkhpur Mugra Badshahpur, Tehsil-Macchlishahar, District-Jaunpur .
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take the appropriate action agaisnt the respondent No.6 to 9 for encroachment the public utility land i.e.pond situated over plot No.721 area 0.490 hectare in village-Sarai Chauhan, Post-Bhilkhpur Mugra Badshahpur, Tehsil-Macchlishahar, District-Jaunpur"
3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decided by Tehsildar vide order date 14.12.2023 in respect to the plot No.721 area 0.012 hectare, which is recorded as pond in the revenue record. He submitted that in spite of the final order dated 14.12.2023 passed by Tehsildar, the order has not been given effect on spot. He further placed report submitted by the authority in order to demonstrate that authorities are not proceeding on the ground that proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the Court although, the proceeding has already been concluded by the Tehsildar by passing the order of ejectment and damages against the person who has been found in possession over the same.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained as remedy has been provided under Para 460 of U.P. Court Manual for the implementation/ execution of the orders passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that order for ejectment and damages under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by Tehsildar on 14.12.2023 in respect to the plot in question.
7. Under para-460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, procedure has been prescribed for implementation/ execution of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the Case, the instant public interest litigation is disposed of with observation that proper proceeding as prescribed under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual can be initiated in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025 PS*