HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 351 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Matter Under Article 227 No.5470 of 2025; Kuldeep Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that the petitioner had filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging encroachment on Gaon Sabha land which was disposed of on 07.08.2024 as reviewed on 30.09.2024 and thereafter on the strength of the said orders, the proceedings were initiated before the Tehsildar under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code, 2006') on the intimation of the petitioner. There are judgments to the effect that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 can be initiated by the Tehsildar on his own or on the application or intimation of any other person that is why the orders were passed in Public Interest Litigation. Even after passing of the final orders under Section 67 of the Code, 2006, the same were not being executed, therefore, the petition was filed by the appellant herein under Article 227 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Aviral Singh, Ramesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Kuldeep Yadav .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of the Constitution of India seeking disposal of the execution case which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge on the ground that the appellant being a complainant does not have locus standi, oblivious of the provisions of Section 67 of the Code, 2006 and the orders passed in the Public Interest Litigation. The reliance placed on the judgments referred by the learned Single Judge were not applicable in the facts of this case, however, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the relief itself has become infructuous as the original order passed under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 as also the appellate order were quashed by the Writ Court in separate proceedings and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for a consideration afresh under Section 67 of the Code, 2006, however, the appellant's grievance is that learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has held that the appellant has no locus in the matter, now this will prejudice the appellant in participating in the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand says that apart from the fact that the appeal is not maintainable, the appellant has no locus to join in the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 as they are carried on by the Tehsildar and it can be done suo motu also. A suo motu action can be based on the officer or court's own information or on the information provided by any other person. The appellant having provided the information, now it is for the Tehsildar to proceed with the matter. The grievance of the appellant is only with regard to the absence of locus of the appellant herein which prejudices him in taking any further action, if the Tehsildar or any authority does not proceed with the matter as after all the proceedings were initiated on the intimation/application of the appellant in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation. We are of the opinion that the Tehsildar, if the proceedings are still pending before him, should proceed to dispose of the proceedings as per law at the earliest, however, if there is any procrastination at the end of the Tehsildar then the appellant herein will certainly have a locus to seek an expeditious disposal of the proceedings as after all it is on his behest that the proceedings were initiated. As this satisfies the appellant's apprehension, therefore, we make it clear that SPLA No. 351 of 2025 2 nothing in the impugned judgment shall come in the way of the appellant in exercising the aforesaid opportunity. 5. The appeal is disposed of, accordingly. October 10, 2025 -Piyush- SPLA No. 351 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench