HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11953 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Shri Sanjiv Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, whose vakalatnama filed today is taken on record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2-4 for removal of encroachment made by respondent no.6 on land bearing Gata No.408, measuring area 0.4550 hectare, situated at Village- Zainuddinpu, Pargana- Bidhar, Tehsil- Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar. 3. The Court put a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner that what legal right of the petitioner is involved in the present matter, as the existence of legal right of the petitioner and infringement/violation order by the respondent is a pre-requisite for seeking a writ of mandamus, to which, the learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the gaon sabha has written a letter for removal of encroachment. The mere writing of a letter of gaon sabha does not confer any legal right on the petitioner for seeking removal of encroachment. 4. The Court next asked the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, he is aware about the pre-requisite for seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, to which, he said that it would lie when any legal action is not taken or when any legal action is taken. From the aforesaid answer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that he is not aware about the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Mayaram Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) essential requirements for seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus. 5. Removal of encroachment on public land can be sought through a writ petition filed in public interest only and it has been stated in the writ petition that previously, a public interest litigation bearing No.690 of 2025 was filed with the same objective by the same counsel, Shri Vijay Kumar Yadav. The order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is annexed as Annexure No.3 to this petition which is reproduced as under: "1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava on behalf of opposite party no.6 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.6. 3. The present petition has been filed as a public interest litigation. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.6 states that the litigation is going on in between the respondent and the father of the petitioner herein, on which contempt petition has also been filed. 5. The abovesaid facts have been concealed in the present writ petition, which has been filed as a public interest litigation. Clearly the affidavit filed is a wrong affidavit and the averments in para 5 are wrong to the knowledge of the petitioner, as such, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.6. 6. In case, the said amount is not paid within a month from today, the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar shall recover the same as arrears of land revenue and shall pay the same to the respondent no.6 forthwith. " 6. The action of the learned counsel for the petitioner in filing a second writ petition with the same prayer when the earlier writ petition filed in public interest was dismissed with the cost on the ground of concealment of fact of pendency of earlier pending litigation, amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. 7. In such circumstances, the present petition filed through Shri Vijay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner for the same purpose, after dismissal of Public Interest Litigation bearing No.690 of 2025 with cost, is also dismissed with the cost of Rs.25,000/- 8. In case, the said amount is not paid within a month from today, the WRIC No. 11953 of 2025 2 District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar shall recover the same as arrears of land revenue and shall pay the same to the respondent no.6, forthwith. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) December 11, 2025 V. Sinha WRIC No. 11953 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench