HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1218 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Shri Azam Shafeeque, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, whose vakalatnama filed today is taken on record. 2. By means of the present petition filed in the public interest, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction for removal of encroachment made on a 3 feet wide chabutara which has allegedly been constructed by respondent nos.5 & 6 on a khadanja road. 3. In the description of the petitioner, it has been stated that the petitioner is currently residing at Mumbai and, therefore, he has no personal interest in the matter. 4. On the basis of written instruction dated 29.11.2025 duly signed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh placed before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel, it has been informed that the petitioner and respondent nos.5 & 6 have their houses in old Abadi land. There is a Khadanja road on which, the petitioner himself along with his uncle namely, Gulam Hassan has made encroachment by raising a platform/ chabutara. Civil Suit No.155 of 2025 filed by the respondent no.5 is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kunda, Pratapgarh regarding the platform that has been illegally constructed by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Kamal Kishor Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhishek Mishra, Azam Shafeequi Aftab Nawab Hasan Shaikh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner. It has further been submitted that the Abadi land is not recorded in the revenue record, therefore, no proceeding can be instituted for removal of encroachment under Section 67 of UP Revenue Code. 5. The photocopy of the aforesaid instruction is taken on record. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner who is residing at Mumbai has filed this petition for removal of chabutara constructed by a private defendant who has already filed a civil suit for removal of chabutara constructed by family members of the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner, residing at Mumbai, has not filed this petition in the public interest but due to the personal vengeance between him and respondents which is an abuse of the process of public interest litigation. 7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- December 3, 2025 V. Sinha WPIL No. 1218 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench