MOHD. ATIF KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WPIL/1068/2025 · 2025-10-10
Subhash Vidyarthi
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 198250 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 198250 (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. - 1068 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Rai, the learned State Counsel and Sri Mohd. Talib Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.4.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the opposite party no.4 to remove encroachments from the land bearing Gata No.466 measuring 0.19 hectare situated at Village Ityathok, Tehsil & District Gonda which is recorded as raasta in the revenue records.
3. While pressing for the aforesaid relief the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State authorities have constructed a paudhshala on the raasta.
4. From the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that it is not a case of any encroachment made by any person, rather it is a case of change of user of the land.
5. When the court pointed out this discrepancy in the submission and the prayer clause to the learned counsel for the petitioner and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Verma, Harshit Awasthi, Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Mohd. Atif Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
asked as to whether he had read the prayer clause before starting his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that he has not read the relief clause of the writ petition before advancing his submission.
6. On the basis of written instructions provided to the learned State Counsel he informed the court that there is no encroachment on the land in question.
7. Accordingly, the petition being misconceived is dismissed. October 10, 2025 Ram.
WPIL No. 1068 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench