Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31111 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 486 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the the Gaon Sabha. 2.The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief: " A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to remove the illegal encroachment made by the respondent no.6 over the plot No. 305 area 0.125 hectare, which is recorded in revenue record as 'Nali' (drainage) situated in Village- Rampur Khurd, Pargana- Ghisua, Tehsil-Macchlishahar, District- Jaunpur. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to restore back the original position of the plot No. 305 area 0.125 hectare, which is recorded in revenue record as 'Nali' (drainage) situated in Village- Rampur Khurd, Pargana- Ghisua, Jaunpur. Tehsil-Macchlishahar, District- Jaunpur. C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing and commanding the respondent no.4/Assistant Collector-I/ Tehsildar, Tehsil- Machhlishahar, District- Jaunpur to comply with the order dated 15.07.2024 passed in Case No. 2537 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. T202414360302537) (Revenue Lekhpal Versus Jagdamba Devi Yadav) under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Tehsildar under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the same has not been given effect on spot. He further submitted that respondent no.6 is raising construction over the plot in question in spite of the order for ejectment and damages passed against the respondent no.6 in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as such necessary direction should be issued for giving effect the order dated 15.07.2024 passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and respondent No.6 should be restrained from raising construction over plot in dispute. Copy of the application dated 06.11.2024 under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual is annexed along with the instant petition as annexure no.4 with the prayer that respondent No.6 should be evicted from plot in question in pursuance of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha submitted that public interest litigation for implemention of the order passed under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cannot be entertained. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute bout the fact that order for ejectment and damages under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by Tehsildar on 15.07.2024 in respect to the plot in question. 7. Under para No.460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, provision has been made for implementation/ execution of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant public interest litigation is disposed of with observation that appropriate proceeding can be initiated for execution of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as prescribed under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad