Allahabad High Court
Thirthraj Gaur vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:206237
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3424 of 2025
Thirthraj Gaur
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Kamlesh Shrama, Munna Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Pradeep Singh, Tarun Kedar Nath Singh, Umesh Singh
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Kedar Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned standing counsel for state-respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to implement the order dated 21.10.2023, passed in Case No.1468 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.T202316670501468) (Report Lekhpal vs. Rama Pathak @ Ramashankar Pathak), under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by removing the illegal encroachment made by respondent no.4 over the gata no.507, area 0.025 hect. situated at village Bhanda, Tehsil Bhadohi, District Bhadohi recorded as Uttar Pradesh Sarkar in the revenue records."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the final order passed by the Tehsildar on 21.10.2023, in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, against respondent no.4, for ejectment and damages in respect to plot no.507, area 0.025 hect, 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 21.10.2023.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that restoration application has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 before the Tehsilar against the order dated 21.10.2023 which is still pending.
5. Learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the instant public interest litigation for implementation/execution of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not maintainable.
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 in respect to the plot in question on 21.10.2023 in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
8. 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/execution of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if the same has attained finality.
9. 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 19, 2025 C.Prakash