HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1020 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "i. A writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to remove the construction of private respondents from land of gata no.81, admeasuring area 0.174 hectare situated at NZA Kheri, Pargana-Kheri, District-Lakhimpur by restoring the pond in its original shape. ii. A writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to remove the problem of water logging adjacent to gata no.81, admeasuring area 0.174 hectare situated at NZA Kheri, Pargana-Kheri, District-Lakhimpur forthwith. iii. A writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to clean the pond of gata no.81, admeasuring area 0.174 hectare situated at NZA Kheri, Pargana-Kheri, District-Lakhimpur. iv. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. v. Allow this writ petition with costs." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dileep Kumar Yadav, Aman Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Verma Himanshu Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) 3. The petitioner-Shri Himanshu Gupta is present before us. He says that he was not aware about the requirement of disclosing filing of earlier writ petition and also that he was not aware about the result of the same. He accepts the fact that he did not inform his Counsel who filed this second writ petition on the same facts. 4. Be that as it may, this can hardly be a justification for filing the second writ petition on same facts after dismissal of the earlier one vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Public Interest Litigation No.934 of 2022 which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Shri Pankaj Verma, learned counsel representing the Nagar Panchayat, Kheri. By means of this Public Interest Litigation purported filed in public interest a prayer has been made to direct the respondents to remove the alleged illegal encroachment from gata no.81 admeasuing 0.174 Hectare which is recorded as pond. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon khatauni which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition and pertains to 1426F to 1427F, according to which khasra plot no.81 though is in the nature of pond/talab, however, it is recorded in the khatauni in the name of certain individuals. Accordingly, the pond does not appear to be a public pond and rather prima facie it appears that it is a personal property of the persons recorded in the khautani which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the petition which is hereby dismissed" 5. Nevertheless, we do not proceed further to impose any cost or take any other action against the petitioner in the solemn hope that he will not do it again especially as it does appear that he is not aware about the procedures and law in this regard. 6. As regard relief No.1 and 3 the same stands concluded by the earlier judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed in earlier P.I.L. No.934 of 2022 WPIL No. 1020 of 2025 2 preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner can avail other remedies but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As regard the relief No.2, on being asked as to what concern did the petitioner have. In this regard, the petitioner submitted that the pond in question is situated in front of his house, meaning thereby, he has a personal interest in the matter, therefore, we see no reason to entertain this petition even for relief No.2 as a P.I.L., however, we leave it open for the petitioner to file a separate petition or seek such other remedy that may be permissible in law but only in respect of relief No.2 which has already been quoted hereinabove. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. October 17, 2025 -Piyush- WPIL No. 1020 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench