Allahabad High Court
Jairam Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 17 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22353 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 333 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jairam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"i, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities concerned to take necessary action in pursuance of the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No.6299 of 2023 (Computer Case No.T202305440206299, Gaon Sabha vs. Balram and Ramu), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to remove the encroachment of Arazi No.132 area 0.005 hectare which is recorded as Pond in the relevant revenue record situated at Village- Singhpur, Pargana, Silhar, Tahsil- Hata, District- Kushinagar.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Assistant Collector / Tahsildar Hata, District- Kushinagar/ respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 19.11.2024 made by the petitioner before him within stipulated period as fixed by the Hon'ble Court."
3. Instruction dated 27.1.2025 sent by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hata is taken on record.
4. Learned Standing Counsel and Counsel for the Gaon Sabha on the basis of instruction submitted that the order under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by the Tahsildar for ejectment and damages against respondent nos.5 & 6. They further submitted that notice has been issued to respondent nos.5 & 6 for removal of encroachment from the plot in question, as such, no interference is required in the matter.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of encroachment from the plot in question forthwith in pursuance of the order of Tahsildar, Hata.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for ejectment and damages has been passed by the Tehsildar against respondent nos.5 & 6.
8. For execution of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, provision has been made 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.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant Public Interest Litigation is disposed of finally 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.
Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Rameez