Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32917 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2403 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohammad Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Farhana Khatoon,R.B.Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha. 2. On 6.1.2025 following order was passed by this Court: "1. Heard Mr. R.B. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 & 3 to stop and remove the illegal construction / encroachment made by the respondent nos.5 & 6 over the Arazi No.33 which is recorded as road in revenue records situated at Village- Singhorawa Tappa Sahila, Pargana and Tahsil- Naugarh, District- Siddharthnagar. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 & 3 to decide the representations of the petitioner recording illegal construction / encroachment made by the respondent nos.5 & 6 over the Arazi No.33 which is recorded as road in revenue record situated at Village- Singhorawa Tappa Sahila, Pargana & Tahsil- Naugarh, District- Siddharthnagar and to take legal action against the respondent nos.5 & 6." 3. Instruction dated 30.12.2024 sent by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharthnagar is taken on record. 4. Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents on the basis of instruction submitted that the plot no.36 area 0.008 hectare has been demarcated for the construction of Annapurna building. He further submitted that the plot no.33 is recorded as rasta in the revenue record. He next submitted that the petitioner is in illegal possession over plot no.36 that is why the instant public interest litigation has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for his personal interest, as such, the instant public interest litigation is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with cost. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is disputing the facts mentioned in the instruction. 6. Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents shall serve the copy of the instruction upon learned counsel for the petitioner during course of the day. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file specific reply to the facts mentioned in the instruction within two weeks. He shall also file affidavit as to whether the petitioner is in illegal possession of plot no.36, which is recorded as navin parti in the revenue record. 8. Put up this case as fresh on 20.1.2025." 3. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 6.1.2025, Mohammad Ali, is present in person before the Court. 4. Mohammad Ali/ petitioner, who is present before the Court submitted that opposite parties are in illegal possession of the plot no.33, as such, the instant has been filed for removal of encroachment / construction over the plot in question. 5. Mr. Satyendra Bhushan Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents submitted that the instant public interest litigation should be dismissed with cost as the proceedings for ejectment and damages are pending against the petitioner himself. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for ejectment and damages passed against the petitioner has been set aside in revision vide order dated 17.11.2023 and matter has been sent before the Tahsildar for fresh decision of the case in accordance with law but no further order has been passed by the Tahsildar against the petitioner. He further submitted that the order of remand passed by the Collector in revision filed by the petitioner is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner. He next submitted that petitioner was under the impression that the proceeding has been finally decided by the Collector setting aside the order passed in the proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and remanding the matter before Tahsildar to decide the proceeding afresh, as such, petitioner can maintain the public interest litigation. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for ejectment and damages was passed against the petitioner but the ejectment order was set aside in revision as well as the matter was remanded back before Tahsildar to decide the proceeding afresh. 9. In the instruction dated 30.12.2024 it is mentioned that there is no encroachment over plot no.33, which is recorded as Rasta and interlocking work of road is going on in proper manner. 10. It is also material that petitioner has not disclosed the fact in the public interest litigation regarding pendency of the proceeding under Section 122- B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the petitioner rather disclosure has been made in reply filed to instruction filed by State. 11. Considering the fact that proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is still pending against petitioner in pursuance of the remand order dated 17.11.2023, the instant public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 12. The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad