Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13967 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2256 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondents No.5 and 6. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has filed this petition in the nature of public interest seeking a remedy of mandamus directing the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur to remove the illegal encroachment from Gata No.774, area 0.004 hectare, sitauted in Village Dudhra, Pargana and Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, which as per the petitioner is recorded as a water body. From a perusal of the material on record, except in Paragraph-2 stating that the petitioner is trying to serve the society at large, apart from a sentence, there is nothing to indicate the credential of the petitioner. This fact apart, the order-sheets, which have been brought on record as Annexure No.4 are only till 23.09.2024 while the same was obtained from the office of the Court concerned on 05.10.2024. The affidavit of the petitioner has been filed on 03.03.2025. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice has been issued to the respondents in the said proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006') and, therefore, an appropriate order be passed. On the other hand, learned standing counsel, on the basis of the written instructions dated 06.03.2025 under the signatures of Tehsildar, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, has informed that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 against the private-respondent was decided on 24.02.2025, the said written instructions are taken on record. Learned standing counsel has also pointed out that the relief claimed in the instant petition is common in respect of petition bearing WRIT-C No.2231 of 2025 which though filed by a different petitioner, but primarily it relates to the same gata. In the said petition, the Court has dismissed the said petition as the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 of which expedition was sought had already been decided on 24.02.2025. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and noticing that this Court in WRIT-C No.2231 of 2025 has dismissed the petition noticing that the order under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 has been complied with, accordingly, this petition is dismissed as nothing survives. However, as a word of caution, it is noticed that where the petitioner does not have any personal cause of action and attempts to file a public interest litigation then the same is to abide by the provisions of the Rules of the Court and clear credentials must be mentioned. As noticed above, there are no credentials mentioned in the instant case and the fact that the order under Section 67 of the Code already stand complied with has also not been included does not reflect that the petitioner who has approached this Court in a public interest litigation. With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench