HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2187 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri U.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Lekhraj Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and Mr. Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed following relief :- "issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to remove the illegal encroachment made by respondent no. 6 over Plot No. 816 area 0.015 hectare recorded as Navin Parti in Revenue record and situated in Village- Maheshpur Kala, Pargana- Mohammadabad, Tehsil- Kasimabad, District- Ghazipur, within stipulated time period." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plot in question is recorded as Navin Parti and respondent no. 6 is in illegal possession over the same. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of encroachment from the plot in question. 4. Personal affidavit as well as counter affidavit has been filed by the State in compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.08.2025 stating that proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been registered against the respondent no. 6 as Case No. T202514291108295 (Gaon Sabha v. Dinesh Yadav). Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Udai Shankar Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Vinayak Varma Ram Datt Singh Yadav And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Mr. Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that exchange proceeding at the instance of institution which is situated over the plot in question is pending, as such, initiation of proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is abuse of process of law. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the Tehsildar. 8. According to the learned counsel for the private respondents, exchange proceeding at the instance of institution is pending, as such, institution can take objection before Tehsildar regarding pendency of exchange proceeding with respect to the plot in question. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is finally disposed of directing the respondent no. 4- Tehsildar, Tehsil- Kasimabad, District- Ghazipur to decide the Case No. T202514291108295 (Gaon Sabha v. Dinesh Yadav) under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously. March 10, 2026 Rama Kant WPIL No. 2187 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad