Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13663-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 169 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sri Kamruddin And 13 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirmit Srivastava,Aakchad Nath,Yasir Rehman Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Shri Nirmit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3, Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the intervener i.e. Bar Association, Ikauna Dehat, Shrawasti, U.P. and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The present P.I.L. instituted by the petitioners prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 not to disturb the pond land and preserve and maintain the same for public use. The pond land is situated at Khasra No.3378 and Khasra No.3379 in Village- Ikauna Dehat, Tehsil- Iikauna, District- Shravasti. 3. It is submitted that the pond in question maintains an ecological balance and has thus, come to be in use of villagers and is a source of water for the animals too. Adjoining to the pond land, there is a Tehsil Office situated at the periphery on the one side. The pond land has an access through a main road situated on the other side of the periphery. It is for this reason that the land being suitable for the construction has been selected to construct a building wherein the Gram Nyayalaya may be established. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 places a bar on the exchange of any such land which caters to any public purpose. Therefore, the proposal of the District Magistrate is not valid to the said provision. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has argued that in exceptional circumstances, Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 does permit change of land use and the land in question being accessible to the public at large and being adjacent to the Tehsil building has been decided to be an appropriate location where access to justice was viewed to be more condusive as compared to any other place. Therefore, a decision for exchange of such land with the other Gaon Sabha land available at three different places has been taken. 6. It is also informed that three ponds shall be constructed by the Gaon Sabha on the land obtained through exchange as such proportionate area of land has duly been allocated to the construction of ponds more than one as such. Therefore, the loss on account of change of land use of one area has duly been compensated by an equal area of land at three different places. 7. The respective map where the pond lands have been identified on Plot Nos.133, 172+173 and 244+190 have duly been shown to us. 8. Learned counsel for the State has also pointed out that acquisition of appropriate land for establishment of Gram Nyayalaya was much higher in price and no land suiting to the public purpose was available close to Tehsil Office. Therefore, such a measure has been adopted after due application of mind by the authorities concerned. 9. The petition filed by the petitioner in public interest has to be viewed from all these angles when the State on the one hand is obliged to establish Gram Nyayalaya and at the same time it is obligatory on the State to maintain the status of public land in the form in which it exists. Change of land use permissible in exceptional circumstances in the present case seems to be considered by the District Authorities having regard to the significance of access to justice as well as the facility which a pond may otherwise provide to the local residents. 10. Creation of more than one pond at three different places, in our opinion, does compensate the environmental cause and construction of a Gram Nyayalaya at the site in question in our humble consideration would equally serve a larger public interest falling within the scope of exceptional circumstances. 11. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any scope for interference in the present case for grant of relief as has been prayed for. 12. In view of what has been stated above, the present petition filed in public interest deserves to be rejected. 13. However, we make it clear that three ponds proposed at the respective plots shall be constructed simultaneous to the construction of Gram Nyayalaya and in case the construction of ponds is left unfinished, it shall be open to the petitioners to make an appropriate application in the present case provided the situation so arises. 14. Learned counsel for the State has also clarified that Gata No.3297 measuring area 0.155 Hectare has been identified where burial of Ta'zieh or such a religious practice can be performed by the local residents without any objection at the end of the State. 15. The District Authority shall also ensure an easy access to the place of burial of Ta'zieh. 16. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 6.3.2025/-Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench