HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10042 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Preeti Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil kumar Kushwaha, the learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.6, is taken on record. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur District- Ayodhya for removal of encroachment made by the opposite party no.6 upon land bearing Gata No. 420/0.0980 hectare recorded as Naveen Parti and Gata No. 421/0.3040 hectare recorded as Pashu Chikitsalaya, situated in Village Bodahari, Pargana- Paschimarath, Tehsil-Bikapur, District Ayodhya. The petitioner claims to have given the representation in this regard on 23.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 has raised a serious objection that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has concealed relevant material facts. He has produced a copy of an order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya in Case No. 1598 of 2023, under Section 67(5) UP Revenue Code 2006, which was an appeal filed by the opposite party no.6 against an order dated 06.06.2023 passed under section 67 of UP Revenue Code 2006. The order states that the petitioner Surendra Pratap Srivastava was also heard in the said appeal and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Sheelu Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ajay Kumar Pandey, Mohan Singh Surendra Pratap Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) he had also filed objections against the report submitted by the Tehsil. 4. The District magistrate, Ayodhya has allowed the appeal by means of the aforesaid judgement and order dated 27.10.2023, setting aside the order pass under Section 67 of UP Revenue Code 2006 and has remanded the matter for being decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to appellant (opposite party no.6) and the respondent (the petitioner). 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 has submitted that the said appeal is still pending. 6. Non-disclosure of the facts by the petitioner indicates that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, whereas any petitioner approaching this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to invoke extraordinary discretionary powers of this Court must approached this Court with clean hands and disclose all the relevant facts. Apparently, this petition suffers from the vice of concealment of relevant facts. 7. Moreover, when an order under section 67 of UP the Revenue Code, 2006 has already been passed against opposite party no.6, which has been set aside in appeal and the matter has been remanded, there is no ground for making any interference in the present writ petition. 8. In view of the forgoing discussions, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. October 14, 2025 Preeti WRIC No. 10042 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench