Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36527 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 337 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jayram Yadav Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.,Priyavrat Tripathi,Sumit Gupta Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Priyavrat Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent N0.5 and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2.The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief: "i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents authority to immediately evict the illegal occupant and demolish the unauthorized construction on the Gram Sabha land identified as Bhita and Bunjer land in Village-Sukha, Tehsil-Kasimabad, District-Ghazipur within stipulated time. (ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authority to take strict action against the illegal occupant under the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and other applicable laws. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authority to submit a compliance report to this Hon'ble Court within a stipulate time frame." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 is running the institution over the plot, which is recorded as banjar and bhita. He submitted that order for ejectment and damage has been passed by Tehsildar against the institution in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 10.10.2023 and 03.11.2023 in respect to the plot in question even then order has not been given effect on the spot. 4. Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that public interest litigation for implementation of the order passed under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cannot be entertained. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute bout the fact that order for ejectment and damage under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by Tehsildar in respect to the plot in question. 7. Under para No.460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, provision has been made for implementation/ execution of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant public interest litigation is disposed of with observation that appropriate proceeding can be initiated for execution of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as prescribed under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad