BAL FOT v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO. AND 9 OTHERS
WPIL/600/2025 · 2025-06-04
Manish Mathur
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 143676 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 143676 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34583 Court No. - 13 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 600 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bal Fot Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 4 and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.
2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite parties no. 6 to 10 stands dispensed with.
3. Petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No. 2 to 4 for removal of illegal /unlawful encroachment of the Private Opposite Parties ie opposite party no-6 to 10 from the Public Utility road i.e. Gata No. 506, 660 and 661 of Village Sonbarsa, Tehsil Bhinga, District Shrawasti, which is recorded as ररसतर,
हररजन आबरदद एवव खरद गडडडढर in the revenue records. II. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No. 2 & 4 to take necessary action upon the application of petitioner dated 08/09-04-2025 against the Private Opposite Parties no - 6 to 10. III. Issue any other suitable Writ, Order or Direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 29.05.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which in fact which was the petitioner who was under illegal occupation of Gaon Sabha property which was subsequently got vacated and at present there is no illegal encroachment over the plots in question by any of the private opposite parties and
learned counsel for petitioner, however, has disputed the said fact.
5. In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, he is provided that in case the petitioner is still feeling aggrieved by any alleged illegal encroachment, he is at liberty
to approach the authorities concerned under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which may be considered and decided expeditiously after affording opportunity of hearing to any of the alleged encroachers.
6. With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.6.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench