Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:177 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11019 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prahlad Singh @ Ravi Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Revenue, Civil Secretariat Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Angrej Nath Shukla,Rajendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief:- "(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 to ensure the compliance of order dated 28.10.2024 passed in Case No.11984/2021, (Computerized Case No.T202108300511984), filed under Section-67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006." The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had filed a PIL regarding the encroachment made on the Plots No.395 and 294 situate at the boarder of Karnailganj Gramin, Tehsil-Karnailganj, District-Gonda. Upon the directions issued by the Court, the proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, the "Code, 2006"). The said proceedings were decided by means of the order dated 28.10.2024 and it is alleged that the same has not been implemented. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he was a party to the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 and if not then how the petitioner has locus to maintain the petition. It was also put to him as to whether the order dated 28.10.2024 has been appealed by the aggrieved party. In respect of both the aforesaid queries, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the complaint was made by the petitioner including the PIL upon which the proceedings were initiated, hence, the petitioner has ample locus to maintain the instant petition. He has candidly submitted that it has not been mentioned in the petition as to whether the order passed under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 has been appealed or not. Having considered the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner was merely a complainant and taking note of the aforesaid proceedings have been initiated under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 and there is no material on record to indicate that the present petitioner was a party to the said proceedings, hence, the petitioner does not have any locus to expedite the proceedings. Moreso, when there is no averment as to whether the order under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 has been appealed by the aggrieved party or not, hence, at this stage, the petition cannot be entertained. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench