HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 154 of 2025 Dinesh Sharma …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. and 8 others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anoop Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh Court No. - 37 HON’BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.9-Gram Panchayat. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Khasra No.236 (Old Khasara No.384) is situated in Village-Kunda, Pargana and Tehsil-Meerut, District-Meerut. Khasara No.384 before Consolidation Operation was recorded in the name of Chandan and Sheshram in the Khatauni of 1366 fasli-1368 fasli. Consolidation Operation took 2 WPIL No.154 of 2025 place in the village Kunda and village has been denotified under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 herein after referred as U.P.C.H. Act. The old Khasra no.384 became Khasra No.236 during consolidation operation which is demonstrated from C.H. form 41 and 45 annexed along with instruction sent by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meerut. Khasra No.236/2 area 0.07000 Hectare is recorded in the name of petitioner's son Karunesh Sharma, Nilesh Sharma as well as petitioner's wife Smt. Veenu Sharma in the Khatauni of 1426 falsi- 1431 fasli. Khasra No.236 is also recorded in the name of various tenure holders. 3. The instant petiton has been filed for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents-authorities to forthwith evict the respondents for the Gata No.384/2 (Area 4 Biswa) situated in Village-Kunda, Pargana/Tehsil/District-Meerut which is the Gram Panchayat land." 4. On 23.01.2025 following order was passed by this court:- "1. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as in the light of the prayer made in the instant public interest litigation, instruction is required from the State and the Gaon Sabha. 2.Learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon shall obtain instructions in the matter, within 2 weeks. 3. Put up this matter as fresh on 14.2.2025" 5. In pursuance of the order of this Court State has placed the instruction before the Court which is already on record. 3 WPIL No.154 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entry of the plot in question made in favour of respondents in respect to the plot No.384/2 is fraudulent, as such, the entry should be expunged in respect to the plot in question and private respondents should be evicted from the same. He submitted that earlier Writ-C was filed before this Court, but the same was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file public interest litigation. Hence the instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in respect to the entry of plot No.384/2, as such relief prayed in the instant petition should be allowed in the public interest. 7. Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents on the basis of the averment made in para Nos.9 and 11 of the instruction submitted that instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that Writ-C or Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained to expunge the entry of the plot. He submitted that instant public interest litigation has been filed with malafide intention, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 WPIL No.154 of 2025 10. There is no dispute about the fact that plot in question, is recorded in the name of private tenure holders. 11. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of instruction dated 29.03.2025 sent by Sub Divisional Officer Meerut will be relevant which is as under:- 5 WPIL No.154 of 2025 6 WPIL No.154 of 2025 12. Perusal of the instruction sent by Sub Divisional Officer demonstrate that Khasra in dispute is recorded in the name of various tenure holders including the sons & wife of petitioner but petitioner has not disclosed the fact that khasara No.236/2 is also recorded in the name of petitioner's sons & wife., 13. Under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 complete procedure has been prescribed for any relief in respect to entry as such writ petition or public interest litigation petition cannot be entertained to expunge long standing entry of the Khasra in dispute. 7 WPIL No.154 of 2025 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant public interest litigation is dismissed. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) September 15, 2025 PS*/Vandana Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad