Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26988 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 277 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chauhan Mansingh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kant Mishra,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Muneshwar Singh, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Azamgarh), respondent no.3 (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh) and respondent no.4 (Tehsildar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh) forthwith to ensure the removal of the illegal encroachment of the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 from the gata no. 310, area 0.370 hect. recorded in the revenue record as marg within stipulated period which is fixed by this Hon'ble Court in view of Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in place of registering the proceeding under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect to plot no.310, the authorities have registered the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, appropriate direction be issued to the authorities to register the proceeding under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and pass the order within a time bound period. 4. Learned standing counsel and the counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been registered in respect to plot no.310, area 0.370 hect. as Case No.T202415060403316, as such, no interference is required in the matter. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that plot no.310 is recorded as marg (class-VI(2) category plot) in the revenue records. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been registered against the persons who has been found in illegal possession over the same. 7. In view of the pendency of the proceeding in respect to the plot in question, the instant P.I.L. cannot be entertained to register the proceeding under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in place of proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been initiated which is the effective proceeding as provided under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, the instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained. 8. No interference is required in the matter. 9. The public interest litigation is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad