HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1093 of 2025 Court No. - 20 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent, Sri Atul Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5-Gaon Sabha, Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 & 7 and perused the material available on record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party nos. 6 & 7 is taken on record. 3. The present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "a. a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 to remove the illegal encroachment/possession over Gata No. 11/391 measuring 0.104 Hectare situated at Village Jaichandpur, Pargana Suryapur, Tehsil Ramsanehi Ghat, District Barabanki, which has been recorded as "Gaon Sabha Abadi Land" and has been illegally encroached by opposite party nos. 6 & 7." 4. Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 & 7 has brought to the notice of the Court that earlier also certain members of the family of the petitioner filed a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Satish Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) similar petition as Public Interest Litigation, having Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 77 of 2025 (Suresh Kumar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others), wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.02.2025 after taking into consideration the previous litigation history between the parties dismissed the said petition. The relevant part of the order dated 14.02.2025 is extracted herein below:- "The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has filed an affidavit, which is taken on record wherein it is specifically stated that series of litigation are going on in between the parties. A specific reference to a Suit in between the father of the petitioner and the father of the respondents has also been placed on record, thus, the cause as espouse is certainly not in public interest. Considering the fact that there is a material concealment, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is warned not to misuse in the similar manner. It is further observed that on account of misadventure of the petitioner in not disclosing the material facts, a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) is imposed upon the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Barabanki shall recover the cost on the petitioner as arrears of land revenue within a period of one month in case the cost is not paid within a period of one week from today. The said cost shall be deposited with the Bar Association Barabanki for use of library funds." 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent has also pointed out that the proceedings for exchange of land initiated at the instance of the private opposite parties is already pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramsanehi Ghat, District Barabanki. 6. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite parties that the present petition as Public Interest Litigation has been filed with material concealment of facts and is an outcome of the personal vendetta against the private opposite parties. He further submits that in any case, on the basis of WPIL No. 1093 of 2025 2 facts that have culled out of the material supplied to him along with the instructions, the present petition is not in Public Interest rather the same is a private litigation between the parties. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in response to the objections and narration of facts of the case as placed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that his client has not informed him all these facts, as such, he could not have disclosed the said facts in the memo of petition. After arguing the case at some length, he submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition. 8.Taking into consideration the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to withdraw the present petition with a strict warning to the petitioner not to repeat such practice of filing petition with concealment of material facts, in future. 9. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court restrain itself to impose cost. November 4, 2025 Arun WPIL No. 1093 of 2025 3 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench