CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AYODHYA DISTT. AYODHYA, U.P. AND 8 OTHERS
WPIL/1110/2025 · 2025-10-30
Rajan Roy, Rajeev Bharti
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 179131 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 179131 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1110 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
1. Heard Shri Ram Prakash Shukla along with Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. This is a writ petition styled as public interest litigation seeking the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to make a survey of the Gata No. 1491क situated in Village- Taldholi, Tahsil- Milkipur, District- Ayodhya and demarcate by installing stone the area of pond and demolish the illegal construction i.e. encroachment over it."
3. On 18.03.2023, 31.12.2024 itself orders for removal of encroachment have been passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It appears that same have not been implemented. It is not very clear as to whether the said orders still survive or have been assailed by aggrieved person in appeal etc. Nevertheless, the petitioner may approach the Tehsildar concerned who may get the facts verified as to whether the orders are still operative and whether they have been challenged by the aggrieved persons before the appellate forum or Court. If so, what is the status of such orders and thereafter, take such measures as may be required and permissible in law. If he finds that there is no legal Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Prakash Shukla, Shailendra Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Chandra Prakash Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) District Magistrate, Ayodhya Distt. Ayodhya, U.P. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s)
impediment in implementation of the orders dated 18.03.2023, 31.12.2024 etc. in the form of any stay or pendency of any proceedings challenging the same, then, he can proceed to implement the same.
4. This order is without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the private opposite parties in respect of the land in question or to assail the orders passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. October 30, 2025 R.K.P.
WPIL No. 1110 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench