Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29059-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2334 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Respondent :- State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Meenakshi Singh (A.C.S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the illegal constructions of respondent no. 6 from the Gata No. 250, area 0.3840 hectare, Tehsil Sadar, District Hamirpur. 2. Submissions have been made that respondent no. 6 has purchased the Gata No. 228 through sale-deed though there is no land available in Gata No. 228 and based on the said sale-deed, she was encroaching over the land. Submissions have been made that on Gata No. 250, a dam has been constructed by respondent no. 4 for the safety of people of District Hamirpur from the flood from river Yamuna and despite several representations made in this regard, no action has been taken by the respondents and, therefore, the respondents be directed to remove the encroachment from Gata No. 250. 3. Instructions were produced by the respondents and on 10.01.2025, it was noticed by the Court through instructions that the petition, though purportedly filed in public interest, the petitioner has personal interest inasmuch his wife owns land next to the plot in dispute regarding which allegations of encroachment have been made. The allegations made in the petition pertaining to the encroachment were also denied. 4. Copy of the instructions was supplied to counsel for the petitioner for completing his instructions in the matter. Pursuant to the said order, a rejoinder affidavit to the instructions has been filed wherein the allegations pertaining to the encroachment are sought to be supported with additional facts, however, not a word has been indicated with regard to the submissions made about the petitioner's wife having a land next to the plot in dispute, which necessarily means that the submissions made in this regard in the instructions are correct. 5. It was incumbent for the petitioner to have specifically disclosed the said fact in the writ petition, which has not been disclosed and even when the instructions indicated the said status, the petitioner has not admitted the said fact and, as such, petition filed in public interest cannot be countenanced. For apparently personal disputes between the parties, the jurisdiction under PIL cannot be permitted to be invoked. 6. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad