HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1040 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Vishal Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dheeraj Ojha, the learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Mohd. Talib Khan holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 and Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.6. 2. The instant writ petition filed purportedly in public interest seeking removal of encroachment made on land bearing Gata No.31 recorded as banjar and Gata No.158 recorded as talab situated in Village Kalhwapur, H/o Paidi, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich. 3. On the basis of written instructions the learned Standing Counsel has informed the Court that upon inspection it was found that the opposite party no. 8 has made encroachment on a public utility land and proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been instituted for removal of encroachment made by the opposite party no.7. Upon inspection it has been found that land bearing Gata No.31 is recorded as banjar and proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code have been instituted for removal of encroachment on the land. No encroachment has been found on the land bearing Gata No.158 recorded as talab. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Vishal Tripathi, Uday Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Rakesh Kumar Dikshit .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have pointed out that although the relief clause in the writ petition prays for a direction for removal of encroachment made by the opposite party nos.7 to 15 there are only 8 opposite parties in the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 has stated that the writ petition has been filed because of personal vendetta between the petitioner and private opposite parties. The petitioner has lodged F.I.R. No.358 of 2020, under Section 147, 323, 308, 506 I.P.C. in Police Station Payagpur District Bahraich against 14 persons including the opposite parties no.6 to 8. Son of the opposite party no.6 has also lodged F.I.R. No.357 of 2022, under Section 147, 427, 452, 324, 308 I.P.C. in Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich against nine persons including the petitioner. He has submitted that the present petition has been filed because of personal animosity between the petitioner and the opposite party no.6 to 8 and it has falsely been given a colour of public interest litigation. 6. As the statutory proceedings for removal of encroachments have already been instituted no interference is called for in the petition regarding the grievance raised. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. October 9, 2025 Ram. WPIL No. 1040 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench