HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3119 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ramji Singh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arunesh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 to 5 to remove the encroachment over the land of Arazi No.212 area 0.0100 hectare and Arazi No.213 area 0.0290 hectare situated in Village- Akhari, Pargana- Kaswar Raja, Tahsil- Sadar, District- Varanasi in pursuance of the order dated 20.1.2022 passed by respondent no.4 / Tahsildar (Judicial), Tahsil- Sadar, District- Varanasi in Case No.13252 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202114200113252), R.L. vs. Mani Ram and others as well as order dated 12.6.2025 passed by respondent no.4/ Tahsildar (Judicial), Tahsil- Sadar, District- Varanasi in Case No.21730 of 2025 (Computerized Case No.T202514700121730), Daya Shanker vs. State, under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction and damages, the order has not been given effect on spot in proper manner. He further submitted that the earlier two public interest litigation have been filed by the petitioner and the same were disposed of with the observation that the encroachment which was made has been removed from the plot in question. He further submitted that the instant public Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramji Singh Patel Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Chandra Bali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) interest litigation has been filed as respondents against whom the order for eviction was passed has again made encroachment over the plot in question, as such, proper action be taken against the private respondent. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for eviction and damages was passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect to the plot in question. 6. Under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the provision for execution has been prescribed for execution of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the repeated public interest litigation cannot be entertained for execution of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. The instant public interest litigation is dismissed with observation that the appropriate proceeding can be initiated in accordance with law is prescribed under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual. October 14, 2025 Rameez WPIL No. 3119 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad