Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 181402 (ALL)

OM PRAKASH PAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. AND 5 OTHERS

/1209/2025 · 2025-11-27

Subhash Vidyarthi

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1209 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Jagan Niwas Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Khare, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, Sri R.M. Yadav, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.6 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant petition the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to take action for removal of encroachment allegedly made by the opposite party no.6. 3. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner has no personal or private interest in the mater. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 has stated that the petitioner has filed the public interest litigation petition with ulterior motive and due to some animosity with the opposite party no.6. The opposite party no.6 has lodged F.I.R. No.276 of 2025 on 10.10.2025 for offences under Sections 131, 352, 351(3) BNS against three named persons including the petitioner and his son. 5. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the basis of written instructions informed that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jaganniwas Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Om Prakash Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) the petitioner has also made encroachment on public land and proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code have been instituted against him also. 6. Confronted with the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. November 27, 2025 Ram. WPIL No. 1209 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench