Allahabad High Court
Jaynath Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 15 Others on 3 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29148 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 441 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jaynath Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hanuman Kinkar,Lalit Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Singh Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent nos.2 & 3 to follow the rule of Eviction under Section 67 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for which respondent nos.5 to 16 may be evicted after ejecting order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Tahsildar - Deoria, District- Deoria, in Suit No.5213 of 2023 (Gaon Sabha vs. Mauavi and Others) relating the Arazi No.216, 217 & 219 of land of Gram Sabha of respective village."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed by the Tehsildar on 16.11.2023 for ejectment and damages in respect to the plot in question, 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 16.11.2023.
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 16.11.2023.
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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant Public Interest Litigation is disposed of finally with observation that proper proceeding can be initiated according to the provision contained under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Rameez