Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Prasad Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 24 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209662
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3689 of 2025
Mahendra Prasad Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Jai Singh Parihar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Azad Rai, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for the following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.2 to 4 to take legal steps against the encroacher/Respondent no.6 for removal of the encroachment nuisance and obstruction over the public utility land bearing Arazi No.411Mi. Area 0.4240 hectare (New Arazi No.1224) and Arazi No.409 Area 0.0010 hectare (Juj part 0.0280 hectare) situated in Village Chauradeeh, Tehsil Chayal, Police Station- Charwa, District-Kaushambi and same has been recorded in revenue record as Pond and to restore the status of pond in its original nature, within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in compliance of orders dated 03.11.2023, 19.09.2025 & 15.10.2025 passed by Revenue Authorities itself;"
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed by the Tehsildar for ejectment and damages against private respondent, in respect to the plot in question, in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the order has not been given effect on the spot. He submitted that appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has also been dismissed by the appellate court. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of illegal encroachment from the plot in question.
4. Learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the instant public interest litigation for implementation/execution 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 in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order of Tehsildar has been maintained in appeal.
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/execution 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 in accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) November 24, 2025 C.Prakash