HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1027 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Shanker Lal Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Purnendu Mishra, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh who has appeared in person before this Court in compliance of the earlier order dated 07.10.2025 along with the copies of the relevant documents and requisite instructions. The presence of the officer was required because he had failed to provide instructions to the learned Chief Standing Counsel in response to a letter sent to him through e-mail dated 01.08.2025. The officer has stated that he had joined the post recently and, therefore, he could not provide instructions in time. He has expressed remorse and assured the Court to be more careful in future. 3. The instant petition has been filed purportedly in public interest praying for a direction for removal of encroachment made by opposite parties no. 6 & 7 over land bearing gata no. 388 measuring 0.017 hectare situated in Village Sarma, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh which is recorded as Nali and land bearing gata no. 389 measuring 0.4630 hectare which is recorded Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shanker Lal Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Ram Moorti Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) as Khalihan. It has specifically been pleaded in paragraph-6 of the writ petition that the petitioner and his family members have not encroached upon any land belonging to gaon sabha. In paragraphs 9 & 10 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner and other villagers had moved applications for removal of encroachment. Copies of the applications referred to in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the writ petition have been annexed as Annexure No. 3 & 4 to the writ petition, both of which have been filed by Ram Lavat Yadav, S/o Ram Sunder who is brother of the petitioner Ram Moorati Yadav, S/o Ram Sunder. 4. In the written instructions provided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, it has been stated that the opposite party no. 6 has made encroachment on 0.003 hectare land forming a part of gata no. 388 recorded as nali and proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been instituted against him. Regarding land bearing gata no. 389 the instructions state that the petitioner's brother Ram Lavat Yadav, who has given applications complaining about encroachment, has himself made encroachment on the aforesaid land and proceedings under Section 67 had been instituted in which an order for removal of encroachment made by the petitioner's brother Ram Lavat Yadav was passed. However, the order has been set aside in the appeal and matter has been remanded and is pending consideration before the Tehsildar. 5. The aforesaid facts clearly establish that the petitioner's brother Ram Lavat Yadav has made complaints alleging encroachment on public land. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Ram Moorti Yadav-brother of Ram Lavat Yadav on the basis of the applications made by Ram Lavat Yadav for removal of encroachment. The petitioner has categorically stated in the writ petition that he and his family members have not encroached any gaon sabha land which averment is false. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain the situation by stating WPIL No. 1027 of 2025 2 that the petitioner has no concern with Ram Lavat Yadav-the alleged encroacher, the fact that complaints filed by Ram Lavat Yadav have been annexed with the writ petition and the same have been formed the basis of filing of the writ petition, belies the explanation rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no concern with his brother Ram Lavat Yadav. These facts indicate a gross abuse of the process of law by filing a public interest litigation in the name of the petitioner when his brother himself is an encroacher. As proceedings for removal of encroachment have already been instituted in accordance with law, no further action is required in this regard in these proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. October 9, 2025 Pradeep/- WPIL No. 1027 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench