Allahabad High Court
Ramekbal Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 5 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15974 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 230 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramekbal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chakrasudan Dubey,Sonam Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent no.5 is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Chakrasudan Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents, Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha and Mr. Arun Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents authority to remove the illegal encroachment of arazi no.92 m, area about 0.1100 hect. which is recorded as khalihan, situated at village Rampur, Dhautala, Pargana Shahjahanpur, Tehsil and District Deoria in pursuance of order dated 16.1.2024 passed by Tehsildar, Division Gorakhpur, Tehsil and Distrit Deoria in Case No.4561 of 2022 (Gaon Sabha vs. Ravindra Yadav) as Computerized Case No.T202205200104561, under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed by the Tehsildar on 16.1.2024 for ejectment and damages in respect to the plot in question, against respondent no.5, the order has not been given effect to. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of illegal encroachment from the plot in question in pursuance of the order dated 16.1.2024.
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. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that restoration application against the order dated 16.1.2024, is pending before the Tehsildar, as such, no interference is required in the matter.
6. In reply, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 16.1.2024 has not been recalled/set aside by any court of law.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. 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 on 16.1.2024.
9. 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.
10. The P.I.L. is accordingly disposed of with observation that proper proceeding can be initiated according to the provision contained under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
Order Date :- 5.2.2025 C.Prakash