Allahabad High Court
Atul Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Others on 17 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 798 of 2025 (Connected with PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1527 of 2025) Atul Kumar Dubey ..Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ..Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. Umesh Vats along with Mr. Aman Arya, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 8 RESERVED Court No. - 44 HONBLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
By this judgment, we propose to decide Public Interest Ligation (PIL) No. 798 of 2025 and the connected PIL No. 1527 of 2025. PIL No. 798 of 2025 has been heard as the leading case and the facts would mostly be noticed from the pleadings of parties in the leading petition. There would be mention, without doubt, of the case in the connected PIL brought by Sheetla Prasad Tiwari, who is arrayed as respondent no. 8 in the leading case.
2. The petitioners in both the PILs, no doubt, have a public interest to represent. They are both residents of the same village, and the public interest they seek to espouse is about the same land, situate in Village Mai, Tashil Mariyahu, District Jaunpur. They are not at issue that Plot No. 569क/0.2550, situate in village last mentioned, is land earmarked for a public purpose and reserved for it. They have very different perceptions, about which public interest should Plot No. 569क/0.25501 serve. The petitioner in the leading case says that the land in dispute is recorded in the revenue records after consolidation as a drain or naali, and should be restored to that use and continued in its user as such, whereas, the petitioner in the connected PIL thinks that though recorded as a drain/naali in the revenue records, the land in dispute has been in use of the residents of the village as a road, who have, by consensus in the Gaon Sabha, developed it and that use of the land in dispute is as much a public purpose as a drain or naali, which should continue.
3. The leading petition was instituted before this Court, with a relief seeking our mandamus commanding the respondents not to make a road on the land in dispute. The case of the petitioner in the leading case is that he is a social worker, an inhabitant of the locality where the land in dispute is situate. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Jaunpur, in order to serve the interest of a minuscule minority of rich residents of the village, is constructing a road on the land in dispute which is recorded as a drain (naali) in the revenue records. This drain is used for outflow of rainwater from the village and irrigation of fields.
4. It is also the petitioners case that the Executive Engineer is forcing construction of the road out of malice against the inhabitants of the village. Upon coming to know of the illegal construction of a road in the land, that is recorded as a drain and the resultant prejudice to the residents of the village, they met the Executive Engineer and apprised him of the difficulties they would face, but no action was taken. The petitioner also says that public money is being wasted in the construction of a road over the land earmarked for drainage. There is a case about the cause being represented before the respondents, but to no avail. It is also the petitioners case that the new road, that is being constructed in the land in dispute by the Executive Engineer, when brought to the notice of the Collector, Jaunpur and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Mariyahu, Jaunpur has not led to any remedial action.
5. On 17.04.2025, when the leading petition came up for admission, we sought instructions from the Collector, Jaunpur if a road was being constructed over the land in dispute, which is recorded as a drain. On the instructions, that were produced before us on 01.05.2025, we passed the following order, which records the relevant part of the instructions in Hindi that the Collector furnished to the learned Standing Counsel. The order dated 01.05.2025 reads :
According to the report submitted by the Collector, Jaunpur, together with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Madiyahun, District- Jaunpur and the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Jaunpur about plot no. 569ka, it is reported:
"द्विस्तरीय समिति द्वारा स्थलीय जांच में यह भी पाया गया कि ग्राम मई परगना बरसठी तहसील मडियाहूं में स्थित भूखण्ड संख्या-569 क/0.255 हे0 नाली खाते की भूमि लगभग 20 वर्ष से आने-जाने के रास्ते के रूप में ग्रामवासियों द्वारा प्रयोग की जा रही है, तथा नाली के रूप में सिचाई एवं जल निकासी हेतु प्रयोग नहीं की जा रही है। उक्त नाली पर निर्मित रास्ता पूर्व से कच्चे मार्ग के रूप में प्रचलन में था जिस पर ग्राम मई के स्थानीय निवासी गुलाब दूबे व अन्य लोगों द्वारा आपसी सहयोग से ग्रामवासियों के आवागमन हेतु आंशिक भाग पर इण्टरलाकिंग का कार्य कराया गया है।
इस प्रकार उपजिलाधिकारी मडियाहूं तथा अधिशासी अभियन्त्रण, ग्रामीण अभियन्त्रण विभाग, जौनपुर द्वारा अभिलेखीय व स्थलीय निरीक्षण करने के उपरान्त प्रस्तुत आख्या दिनांक 29.04.2025 से स्पष्ट है कि ग्राम मई परगना बरसठी तहसील मडियाहूं में स्थित गाटा संख्या 569 क/0.255 हे० यद्यपि राजस्व अभिलेख में नाली की भूमि के रूप में दर्ज है, परन्तु विगत 20 वर्ष से अधिक समय से रास्ते के रूप में प्रयोग किया जा रहा है तथा इस प्रकार प्रयोग किये जाने से किसी प्रकार की जल जमाव की समस्या नहीं है (संलग्रक उपजिलाधिकारी मडियाहूं तथा अधिशासी अभियन्त्रण, ग्रामीण अभियन्त्रण विभाग, जौनपुर द्वारा प्रस्तुत आख्या दिनांक 29.04.2025)| आख्या माननीय न्यायालय के समक्ष सादर प्रेषित।"
A perusal of the said conclusion in the report shows that the Collector acknowledges the fact that plot no. 569ka/0.255 hectares is recorded in the revenue records as a drain (naali) but the natives of the village have constructed it as a road by using it for the last twenty years.
Let the Collector, Jaunpur disclose his stand on an affidavit if a public utility land, like a drain, which is recorded as such, can be subjected to a change of user by natives of the village and acquiesced into by the Revenue Authorities as the Collector and the Deputy Collector propose in their report. The Collector's affidavit shall be specific as to how this kind of encroachment, privately done in a public utility land, has to be dealt with. The affidavit shall be filed on or before 16.05.2025.
Lay as fresh on 16.05.2025.
Let this order be communicated to the Collector, Jaunpur through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours.
6. It was apparent from the Collectors stand, as the order of 01.05.2025 would show, that he did not dispute it for a fact that the land in dispute was recorded in the khata of a drain (naali), but said that the residents of the village had been using the said land as a way or road for the past 20 years. The Collector went to the extent of saying that though the land in dispute had been developed upon as a road and used as such for the past 20 years, there was no problem of drainage or outflow of water from the village, according to the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service. It was on the said stand that we required the Collector to file his own affidavit, indicating how this kind of an encroachment could be done in a public utility land. We also required him to show if the public purpose, for which the public utility land was earmarked, could be changed by residents of the village, which the Revenue Authorities could acquiesce into. It was upon this order of ours that the Collector filed his personal affidavit dated 15.05.2025, of which, we have taken note of extensively in our order dated 16.05.2025, which reads :
A personal affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur. It is taken on record. In paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 of the affidavit, it is averred:
8. That the interlocking was subsequently removed, and the land was restored to its original condition. Thereafter, the portion of the land forming part of the Naali Khata was excavated using a JCB machine under the supervision of the Revenue and Rural Engineering Department, and its status was restored as a drainage channel, in accordance with revenue records. A copy of the inspection report, spot memo, and spot photographs are being collectively annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P.A.-1 to this affidavit.
9. That it is most respectfully submitted that Plot No. 569-K, measuring 0.255 hectares, located in Village Mai, is recorded in the Khatauni under Category 6-1 as Naali Khata land. The said land is categorized as public utility land under Section 77 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
10. That as per law, no change in the nature or use of such public utility land can be effected by any individual or group of individuals, including local residents. The use of such land as a pathway constitutes encroachment, which has been duly removed by the competent authorities. The land has been restored to its original use as drainage by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mariyahu and the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Jaunpur.
The pathway has been recorded as an encroachment and the land has been acknowledged to be one recorded in the naali khata.
At this stage, Mr. Umesh Vats, Advocate has put in appearance, filing a vakalatnama, and seeks leave of this Court to make an impleadment application along with a counter affidavit within three days next.
This petition is, accordingly, adjourned to 20.05.2025.
To be taken up as fresh, along with a report regarding status of pleadings.
7. The fact that the Collector took a stand that the land in dispute had been restored as a drain (naali) by excavating it, using a JCB machine, could have been an end of the cause, which the petitioner in the leading case espouses, because, after all, he wanted the land in dispute to be restored to its recorded user as a drain/naali and the illegally constructed road removed. But, this was not to be.
8. Before proceeding further, it must be recorded that the stand of the petitioner, according to the respondents, was inaccurate in this regard, in that, that this was not a case where the road was in the process of being constructed over the land in dispute. Rather, it was a case where the road had already been constructed over the said land, effacing the drain/naali 20 years ago by a consensus amongst the residents of the village and used as a road, way or thoroughfare. It was a case where the petitioner, according to the respondents, wanted the road constructed over the land in dispute, recorded as a drain/naali, to be dismantled in order to restore it to its recorded user. The Collector, therefore, according to his case, took the necessary steps, since the petitioner was correct about this part of his stand that it was, after all, a recorded naali and its user could not be changed by an individual or a group of individuals, who were residents of the village. The Collector, therefore, according to his own affidavit that he filed, had the road dismantled, employing a JCB machine and restored the land in dispute to its recorded user as a drain/naali. It is for this reason that we said earlier that if this stand of the Collector, that he had got the land in dispute restored to its recorded use, were flawlessly correct, the cause of action espoused by the petitioner would have stood satisfied.
9. At this stage, two things happened. An impleadment application dated 19.05.2025, on behalf of the four residents of the village, was filed, supported by an affidavit, which we treated as a counter affidavit on their behalf, saying that the road constructed over the land in dispute had been in use for the past 20 years. There had been no drain over the land in dispute during this period of time. Their wholesome stand would be noticed later. The impleadment application was allowed by an order dated 26.05.2025, and they were impleaded as respondent nos. 5 to 8. A rejoinder affidavit was filed to the private respondents counter affidavit by the petitioner on 14.07.2025. On the said date, the petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit.
10. The other thing, that we have spoken of earlier, was the stand taken in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. It was stated in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that during the summer vacation, Gulab Dubey and Anil Kumar Dubey, that is to say, respondent no. 7 and some non-parties, also residents of the village, had again encroached the land in dispute and filled up the drain with earth that the Collector had caused to be restored, after dismantling the road.
11. The petitioner said that an application was made before the Collector, Jaunpur and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Mariyahu, Jaunpur to remove the encroachment, but they did nothing. Some photographs have been annexed to the supplementary affidavit. At page no. 9 of this affidavit is a photograph, where the excavated road can still be seen, though it appears to be a very half-hearted effort. But, on page nos. 10 and 11, there are photographs which show a kutcha road, that has been restored. The two later photographs are ones taken using a Global Positioning System (GPS) Camera, giving the precise location, the date and time when the photographs were captured.
12. At one stage of these proceedings, respondent nos. 5 and 6 made applications, seeking to delete them from the array of parties. We rejected those applications by our order dated 22.07.2025 passed on the two applications.
13. As matters stand, parties are now at issue if the land in dispute ought be used as a road, way or thoroughfare, as it has been used that way by the residents of the village for the past 20 years or should it be restored to its recorded user as a drain/naali. The other is a factual dispute, and, that is, if after the Collector's personal affidavit, where he seems to have truthfully reported a dismantling of the existing road and restoration of the drain, the encroachment by residents of the village has come back and the thoroughfare restored, effacing whatever kind of a drain, was restored.
14. In the connected case, respondent no. 8 to the present petition, Tiwari, has come up with the prayer that the unauthorised drain/naali, recorded in the land in dispute, be dismantled and the road/way/thoroughfare restored. The facts, which the petitioner in the connected case has pleaded, are much at variance from those in the leading petition, though, in principle, Tiwari does not seem to deny that the land in dispute was recorded in the khatauni as a drain/naali. Tiwari says that he is a resident of the village and interested in protecting this public utility land and its user as a road, to which, it has been put for the last 20 years. There has been no drainage on the said land during this period of time. Tiwari says that he is a 73-year old man, also driven by public spirit, and has involved himself in social work in the village and surrounding areas. He says that Dubey, who has filed the leading case, has done so to harass and victimise general public, who dwell in the village. The bona fides of Dubey have been questioned by the PIL petitioner.
15. It is Tiwari's case that when the leading case was listed on 17.04.2025, this Court directed the Collector to furnish instructions within a week, in response to which, the Collector correctly instructed the learned Standing Counsel to apprise the Court that the land in dispute was in use as a road or way for the past 20 years and the drain/naali was not there. It was also mentioned that the residents of the village had put up interlocking bricks. When this Court again directed the Collector to file an affidavit to the effect if a public utility land, like a drain, can be subjected to a change in user by the residents of the village, the District Administration hurriedly got the existing road dismantled using a Joseph Cyril Bamford2 machine. They had it dug up also to restore the drain. This came about, according to the PIL petitioner, in the connected matter on account of Dubey impressing upon the local administration that the Court was annoyed due to construction of a road and the local administration, therefore, acted in haste to dismantle the road, without waiting for this Court's orders. The Collector then filed an affidavit, reporting that the interlocking road had been dismantled using a JCB machine and excavated to restore the drain. All this has happened much to the annoyance and discomfort of the residents of the village in general, who had been using this thoroughfare for two decades. It is for this reason that these residents have applied for impleadment in the leading case.
16. The petitioner says that there was a public/government tubewell and a narrow drainage system built, but, later on, the tubewell was removed and so was the drain. The Gaon Sabha passed a resolution in the year 1999 for use of the land in dispute as a way or road. The Gaon Sabha constructed a kharanja road over the land in dispute and on one side, there was a kutcha drain. The petitioner says that the general public, including dwellers in the village, never objected to the way or road that was constructed to replace the drain. Dubey has brought the leading case with some hidden agenda. The fact that there was a road over the land in dispute is harped upon repeatedly by the petitioner in the connected matter.
17. It is next said that several plot numbers, which include Plot Nos. 349, 482, 464, 525, 487, 579, 493 and 472 are recorded in Category 6, which means non-agricultural land (barren land - covered with water), and in the next column, naali has been mentioned against the name of the khata holder. The aforesaid khata is being used as a road for the general public which has been built by the Gaon Sabha and the State Government using public money. It is also the petitioner's case here that the Lekhpal has failed to do a partal and make an entry in the field book and the record of rights. Therefore, the drain/naali shown in the khatauni is contrary to the actual user of the land in dispute. It is also pleaded that in paragraph no. A-124 of the U.P. Land Records Manual, every land of the Gaon Sabha or other lands have to be recorded in the khatauni, but, in the present case, it has not been done in accordance with the provisions of the said Manual. The Lekhpal is duty-bound to make partal every year after harvesting of the Rabi and Kharif crop. He has to report any change of user of land of Category 6. But, in the present case, there is no report for the last 20 years by the Lekhpal. It is on this account that the land is still shown as a drain.
18. It is emphasized that Sections 25 and 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 20063 provide for the right of way and other easmentary rights. These also make provision for removal of obstacles in the free use of a public road or a common land in the village. These provisions have been made to benefit the general public, but, Dubey's PIL, the leading case, has caused the local administration to infringe that interest of the general public by dismantling an existing road.
19. It is emphasized that under Section 60 of the Code, the Land Management Committee has been authorized to superintend, manage and control all lands entrusted to the Gram Panchayat under Section 122A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, since repealed. The aforesaid powers of superintendence, management and control of all land belonging to the Gaon Sabha has been given to the Land Management Committee. The said power includes the power to construct pathways, abadi sites etc. in the Gaon Sabha land. It is then pleaded on behalf of the petitioner in the connected case that Article 243G of the Constitution talks about the panchayat system in villages and the State Government have amended the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 19474 to bring it in accord with Article 243G of the Constitution. In the aforesaid Act, the powers, duties, functions and administration of the Gram Panchayat has been given in Chapter IV. Section 15 of the Act of 1947 spells out the functions of the Gram Panchayat, which includes construction and maintenance of village roads, and, also gives power of development of wasteland. Section 17 of the Act of 1947 gives power to the Gram Panchayat regarding public streets, waterways and other matters. Section 18 gives power to the Gram Panchayat for the improvement of sanitation, including closure and removal of water closets, drains etc. even in private land. That under the Act of 1947 and the Revenue Code, the Gram Panchayat has been given wide powers for ensuring welfare of the general public and it is under these powers that the road in the land in dispute had been constructed in place of the drain, and, later on, improved. Under Section 20 of the Act of 1947, the Gaon Sabha has been given power to establish schools and roads. It is further said that the District Administration, wrongly and illegally, without considering the Gram Sabha's authority given under the Act of 1947 and the Revenue Code have removed/ dismantled the entire road built in the land in dispute. The said road is liable to be restored at Dubey's expense. It is on these facts that the petitioner in the connected case wants the road in the land in dispute to be restored.
20. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, the Collector, Jaunpur and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Mariyahu, Jaunpur. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Atul Kumar Dubey, the petitioner in the leading case.
21. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, it is asserted for a fact that Plot Nos. 349/ 0.024, 482/ 0.036, 464/ 0.004, 525/ 0.069, 579/ 0.020, 493/ 0.051 and 472/ 0.020 are recorded as naali in the revenue records and construction of a way or road by the Gram Sabha on these plots and putting them to a different user is wrong. The powers in law, said to be available to the Gram Sabha or the Land Management Committee under Sections 25 and 26 of the Revenue Code, as well as Section 60, to change the nature of the land in dispute from a naali to a road, has also been disputed. It is asserted that the naali was restored, after digging up the road done by the residents of the village themselves and used as such for the past 20 years.
22. In compliance with the orders of this Court in the leading case, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Dubey, respondent No.4 here and the petitioner in the leading case, the stand is the same as in the leading case.
23. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find that the land in dispute is indeed recorded as naali in the khatauni for the fasli year 1428-1433, which corresponds to the calendar year 2020-26. This is a position, which the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer do not deny; rather, they accept it. The Collector in paragraph no. 9 of his personal affidavit, filed in the leading case, acknowledges the land in dispute, to wit, Plot No. 569क/ 0.2550, situate in Village Mai, Tashil Mariyahu, District Jaunpur, to be recorded in the khatauni as Category 6(1) and entered in the khata of naali. It is admitted to the Collector that it is public utility land under Section 77 of the Revenue Code.
24. The contention advanced on behalf of the private respondent to the leading case, including Tiwari, that the entry in the khatauni was not one made in accordance with Paragraph A-124 of the Land Records Manual, cannot be accepted. The private respondent's contention, in resisting the plea in the leading case on ground that the Lekhpal had not done his regular partal in order to record a change in user of land of Category 6, which has resulted in an incorrect entry continuing in the khatauni, is also besides the point. The provision for a partal, after Rabi and Kharif crop, is essentially meant for the partal of fields, that are cultivated and would have little application to land, that is recorded as public utility of any kind. If the private respondents' contention, who are residents of the village, were accepted, it would amount to nothing less than permitting encroachment on public utility land, governed by Section 77 of the Revenue Code. A Lekhpal's partal, as asserted by the private respondents, would mean no more than this that the Lekhpal ought record in the partal, encroachment in public utility land or a change of its user, as existing on the spot, which should make its way into the khatauni, legitimizing the illegal change. Likewise, the user of the land in dispute, a public utility, as a road for 20 years, as the private respondents say, would not result in the destruction of its character.
25. We cannot accept the private respondents' contention, including Tiwaris, that the Gram Sabha is empowered under the Act of 1947 or the Revenue Code, to effect a change in the use of public utility land, governed by Section 77 of the Revenue Code. The record of the land in dispute as a naali, a public utility land, and acknowledgment of its character by the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer, clinches the issue. They have acted on the basis of their records and restored the drain/ naali after causing the illegally constructed way/ road to be dismantled. It is quite another matter that the residents of the village, who seem to have become used to the employment of the land in dispute as a way, have encroached again into the public utility land and restored the illegally constructed way or road on the same. Neither the original change of user of the land in dispute nor the fresh encroachment to restore the way, contrary to the recorded use of the said land, can confer any right upon the residents of the village to perpetuate the wrongful conversion of a public utility. If the residents of the village, including Tiwari, thought that the entry in the khatauni is in any way wrong, they should have applied for correction of record under Section 38 of the Revenue Code, or before the enforcement of the Revenue Code, under Section 33/39 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 19015. This having not been done, they cannot question or trifle the recorded use of the land in dispute as a public utility, entitled to the protection of Section 77 of the Revenue Code.
26. Under sub-Sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 77 of the Revenue Code, it is provided regarding the authority to change the class of a public utility land, as under:-
77. Bhumidhari rights not to accrue in certain lands.- (1) x x x (2)] Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in other provisions of this Code, where any land or part thereof specified in sub-section(1) of this section is, surrounded by or, in between, or on the edges and necessary for public purpose, the plot or plots of land purchased, acquired or resumed for public purpose, the State Government may change the class of such public utility land, and if class of such public utility land is changed, any other land equivalent to or more than that of the aforesaid public utility land, shall be reserved for the same purpose in the same or any nearby Gram Panchayator local authority, as the case may be or the State Government may permit the exchange thereof under section 101 of this Code in the manner prescribed.
Provided that the class of any public utility land may be changed only in exceptional cases on such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed. The reason for changing the class of public utility land shall be recorded in writing.
(3) The State Government, while changing the class of the land or permiting the exchange of the same under section 101 of the Code, shall consider the location, public utility and suitability of the land proposed to be reserved or exchanged.
(4) If class of land is changed under sub-section (2) of this section, the Collector shall order the record of rights (Khatauni) and the map to be corrected accordingly.
Explanation:- The expression public purpose, in sub-section (2) of this section means, mutatis mutandis, the public purpose as defined in clause (za) of section 3 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act no.30 of 2013).
27. Apparently, even if the contention of the private respondents were accepted that the road constructed on the land in dispute, the recorded user whereof is a drain/ naali, is also a public purpose and the Gram Sabha have resolved to use it that way in the interest of the residents, the authority to change the class of a public utility land is vested in the State Government under Section (2) of Section 77 of the Revenue Code. And, that power too has to be exercised by the State Government in the manner provided under sub-Sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 77 of the Revenue Code. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the recorded use of the land in dispute was authorized by a resolution of the Gram Sabha or a decision to that effect. Moreover, in the return filed on behalf of the private respondents, including Tiwaris, in the leading case, no resolution of the Gram Sabha, resolving to change the nature of the recorded public utility in the land in dispute, has been annexed. A resolution of that kind passed by the Gram Sabha has not been filed along with the connected PIL, instituted by Tiwari.
28. In the circumstances, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.798 of 2025 succeeds and is allowed and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1527 of 2025 fails and is dismissed. A mandamus is issued to the Collector, Jaunpur, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Madiyahun, District Jaunpur and the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, District Jaunpur, to ensure amongst themselves restoration of Plot No. 569क/ 0.2550, situate in Village Mai, Tashil Mariyahu, District Jaunpur to its recorded use as a naali/ drain, after causing to be removed all kinds of encroachment therein, including the road constructed on it. The respondents aforesaid are further commanded to ensure that the drain, once restored, is not encroached by any resident of the village or the Gram Sabha or put to a different use than a drain/ naali. The aforesaid order shall be carried out within six weeks of receipt of the same by the three respondents.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.
30. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order Collector, Jaunpur, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Madiyahun, District Jaunpur and the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, District Jaunpur, all through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
(J.J. MUNIR) JUDGE October 17, 2025 I. Batabyal/ Anoop Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No