Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 14 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:205637
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3524 of 2025
Mahendra Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anil Kumar Bind, Bhagwan Das Bind
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Azad Rai, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"i. To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the encroachment of the Public Utility Land i.e. Chakmarg in the illegal encroachment from the private respondents situated over Gata No. 531 area 0.0440 hectare situated at village Aushanpur Post Kewai Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj and restore the Public Utility Land as exist prior to 1427 to 1432 Fasli year and also take the necessary action against the private respondents for making illegal encroachment.
ii. To issue any other order of direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii. To award the cost of the petition to this petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Tehsildar vide order dated 29.01.2009 passed an order for eviction and damages against the private respondent no. 6 in the proceeding, under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. He further submitted that inspite of the order passed in the year 2009, the order has not given effect. He next submitted that petitioner has filed a fresh application before the authorities for taking necessary steps in the matter, but no steps has been taken by the authorities.
4. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that order for ejectment and damages has already been passed in respect to plot no. 531.
6. Under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the provision has been prescribed for implementation of the order passed under 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was earlier 122B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such the public interest litigation cannot be entertained for execution of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act/Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
7. No interference is required in this matter.
8. The instant public interest litigation is dismissed with observation that appropriate proceeding for implementation/execution of the order can be initiated according to the provision prescribed under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court, Manual in accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) November 14, 2025 Neetu