HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3251 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri S.P.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the peetitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief:- "i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the Collector, Jaunpur, District-Jaunpur/respondent no.2 to remove the encroachment made by respondent nos.5-9 on the public utility land being Khalihan bearing Arazi No.188, admeasuring 0.130 hectare situated at Gram Sabha- Banjari, Pargana & Tehsil- Mariyahun, District Jaunpur. ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to restore the status of public utility land 'Khalihan' by removing the illegal construction made by respondent nos.5 to 9." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the order for eviction and damages passed in respect to the plot in question, the authorities are not taking steps for implementation of the order passed under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act/67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that the earlier Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Swami Nath Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) public interest litigation no.194 of 2024 filed by the petitioner has been disposed of with an observation that appropriate proceedings for execution can be initiated in respect to the plot in question as such, instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State/Gaon Sabha and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for eviction and damages has already been passed in respect to plot in question under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act/67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. This Court while deciding the earlier public interest litigation has held that appropriate proceedings for execution can be initiated as such, fresh public interest litigation cannot be entertained in respect to the same plot in question/same cause of action. 7. No interference is required in this matter. 8. The instant public interest litigation is dismissed accordingly. October 27, 2025 Mini WPIL No. 3251 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad