Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36842 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6575 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramdeo Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 and perused the record. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose would be served by putting the private respondents to notice and keeping this application pending before this Court. However, in case the private respondents feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved. 3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgement and order passed by this Court in the case of Anju Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others (Writ C No.21634 of 2022) on 2.8.2022. The order dated 2.8.2022 reads as follows :- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the District Administration to ensure that the land grabbers and house grabbers do not interfere in the possession of the petitioner and those who have entered forcibly the house of the petitioner, should be ousted forthwith. Learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of his prayer so made has placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 1st May, 2017 which provides for a district level task force to be headed by the District Magistrate to look into the grievances of the public to ensure that unauthorized people and land grabbers do not interfere in the possession and illegal possessions must be removed. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner may be permitted to raise his grievances afresh before the District Magistrate and that may be directed to be looked into, strictly in accordance with law. In view of the above order, dealing with the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present petition stands disposed of with the direction that in the event petitioner makes any such application in the light of the Government Order dated 1st May, 2017 to the District Magistrate within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be looked into and be disposed of strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the Government Order dated 1st May, 2017 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks of presentation of such an application. Needless to add that the order to be passed by the District Magistrate shall be reasoned and speaking one." 4. Since the controversy involved in the present case is identical as in the case of Anju Devi (supra) hence petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. 5. In view of the above order, dealing with the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present petition stands disposed of with the direction that in the event petitioner makes any such application in the light of the Government Order dated 1st May, 2017 to the District Magistrate within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be looked into and be disposed of strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the Government Order dated 1st May, 2017 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks of presentation of such an application. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad