Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 164990 (ALL)

VIJAY SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE LKO. AND 5 OTHERS

WPIL/988/2025 · 2025-09-22

Pankaj Bhatia

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 988 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Shobhit Singh who appears for the respondent no.6. 3. The present petition has been filed as a PIL, disclosing that the petition is of public cause and no personal interest whatsoever is involved by the petitioner, directions have been sought for removing the encroachment of the public utility land, which according to the petitioner is pathway leading to several other gatas which includes Gata Nos. 168, 121, 195, 194, 167, 165, 164 etc. 4. Standing Counsel, based upon the instructions, states that notices have already been given and the action shall be taken in accordance with law. 5. The counsel for the respondent no.6 has placed across the Bar four sale deeds which have been executed by the petitioner or his near relatives in favour of the respondent no.6 in respect of land including Gata No.168. The said sale deeds, which are registered, are taken on record. 6. Solely considering the said sale deeds, a wrong affidavit has been filed stating that no personal interest is involved, the petitioner has misused the forum for causing the public cause by filing a PIL despite the fact that, the personal cause is involved. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ambuj Singh, Nritika Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Vijay Shankar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 7. In view thereof, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 8. For making a wrong statement, a cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner. The said cost shall be paid to the respondent no.6 within a period of six weeks failing which the District Magistrate Amethi shall recover the same as arrears of land revenue and shall pay the same to the respondent no.6. September 22, 2025 VNP/- WPIL No. 988 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench