Allahabad High Court
Diwakar Kushvaha vs State Of U.P. And 15 Others on 18 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:205236
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3510 of 2025
Diwakar Kushvaha
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 15 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Dileep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Dillep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satendra Bhushan Dubey, learned standing counsel for the state-respondent. Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the authorities concerned to implement the order dated 16-09-2025, 05-08-2024 & 03-08-2024 passed against the private Respondent no. 6 to 16 under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and to take necessary action and remove the encroachment made by the private Respondents from Arazi No. 148 area 0.006 hectare, which is recorded as "Banjar" in the relevant revenue record, situated at Village Karuawana Abadkari, Tehsil- Khadda, District - Kushi Nagar, expeditiously, within stipulated period as fixed by this Honible Court.
ii. issue a writ, order or d?rection in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Tehsildar, Tehsil- Khadda, District Kushi Nagar/Respondent no. 4 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24-09-2025, pending before him, expeditiously, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed by the Tehsildar for ejectment and damages in respect to the plot in question, 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.
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.
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 18, 2025 C.Prakash