HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3929 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4; Sri K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 9. 2. On the basis of the instructions dated 16.12.2026, sent by Tehsildar Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, the following order was passed by this Court on 22.01.2026:- "1.Instruction dated 16.12.2025 sent by Tehsildar, Budhana, District-Muzaffar Nagar is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for Gram Sabha. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot in question is recorded as 'Johar' in the revenue record and private respondent is in illegal possession over the same. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel for the state-respondents submitted that instant public interest litigation has not been filed with correct facts as such the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that there is no illegal encroachment over the plot in question, as such prayer made in in the instant public interest litigation cannot be allowed. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Pundir, Rekha Pundir Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani, Raj Kumar Singh Sanjay Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is disputing the fact mentioned in the instruction. 6. Mr. Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel is directed to serve the copy of the instruction to learned cousnel for the petitioner during course of the day. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file reply to the facts mentioned in the instruction. 8. Put up this matter as fresh on 12.2.2026." 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner against the instructions dated 16.12.2025, disputing the correctness of the averments made in it, reiterating the fact that the pond existing in Plot No. 735 has been encroached by the respondent nos. 6 to 9. It has been further contended that the Plot No. 735 recorded as Johad has not been measured in accordance with law by adopting the procedure provided under the rules. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of instructions shows that at present the pond existing in Plot No. 735 is free from all encroachments, however, the petitioner is not satisfied with the measurement conducted, as the instructions does not enclose the spot inspection map prepared by the revenue team. As the petitioner is not satisfied with the demarcation proceedings, he is at liberty to move an appropriate application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to get the plot no. 735 demarcated in accordance with law. If any such application is filed by the petitioner before the appropriate authority, it is desirable that it shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of. May 15, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WPIL No. 3929 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad