HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1025 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Mohan Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Seema Dixit, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.5-Gaon Sabha Amarai Gaon, Pargana & Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya. 2. By means of the instant petition filed in public interest the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to remove encroachment over land bearing Gata No.745 measuring 0.051 hectare situated in Gaon Sabha Amarai Gaon, Pargana & Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya, which is recorded as banjar in the revenue records. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Case No.6441 of 2022 was filed by Gaon Sabha before the Tehsildar Rudauli, Ayodhya under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was decided by means of an order dated 18.04.2024 directing removal of encroachment made on the aforesaid land by one Tej Pratap Pathak. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the basis of instructions provide to her has informed that Tej Pratap Pathak and Smt. Pushpa Pathak have filed appeals against the aforesaid order dated 18.04.2024. The encroachment can only Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Mohan Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Sudhakar Pathak .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) be removed after decision of the appeals. 5. The petitioner has impleaded Smt. Pushpa Pathak as opposite party no.6 to the writ petition and he has annexed the order under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 passed in the case of Tej Pratap Pathak. Tej Pratap Pathak has not been impleaded as opposite party to the petition and there is no averment in the writ petition regarding the order under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue code having been passed against Pushpa Pathak who has been impleaded as opposite party. 6. It appears that although the petitioner claims to have approached this court in public interest he has filed the petition after preparing the same in a casual and callous manner. In these circumstances, when two appeals are pending consideration against the orders passed for removal of encroachments no interference is warranted in the instant petition. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. October 7, 2025 Ram. WPIL No. 1025 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench