Allahabad High Court
Baburam vs State Of U.P. And 22 Others on 18 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:205292
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3519 of 2025
Baburam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 22 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Krishna Kant Singh, Niwas Kumar Gupta, Ratnesh Kumar Pathak
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"I. Writ order or direction in the nature of a Mandamus commanding/ directing to the respondent no.2 & 3 to take action as per provisions of Under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and removed the encroachment upon chakroad and further also direct the concerned authorities to take proper action in such cases in which order of eviction has already been passed and to vacate/ evict the encroachers from chakroad.
II. Writ order or direction in the nature of a Mandamus commanding/ directing to the respondents to lodge case against the other encroachers who have been left by the authority concerned."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the final order passed by the Tehsildar on 27.6.2025 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 in pursuance of the order dated 27.6.2025.
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 on 27.6.2025.
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