Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sudha Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 13 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:201568
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3317 of 2025
Smt. Sudha Shukla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Jitendra Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2.The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief:
"(I) 1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to comply with the Order dated 28-06-2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 to vacate the physical encroachment over the public utility land (Usar) bearing Arazi No. 1664 area 0.332 Hec. upon which the respondent no. 5 encroached area 0.050 Hec. of the Arizi No. 1664.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated dated 04-08-2025 filed by the petitioner, is still pending before the respondent no. 3 within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order for ejectment and damages dated 28.06.2025 passed by Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, against the respondent No.5, order has not been given effect on spot. He further submitted that against the order for ejectment and damages, no appeal has been filed by respondent No.5 as such, necessary direction be issued for removal of encroachment from the plot in question.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that provisions has been made under Para-460 of U.P. Revenue 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 28.06.2025 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 dismissed with observation that proper proceeding as prescribed under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual can be initiated in accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) November 13, 2025 PS*/C.Prakash