HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3933 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Amar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4; Sri Rajan Chauhan holding brief of Sri Azad Rai for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Pramod Kumar holding brief of Sri Arvind Kumar for the respondent no. 6. 2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to remove the encroachment made by respondent Nos.6 and 7 over the Arazi No. 70 Area 0.1710 hectare which is recorded as Khad Ka Gaddha in the revenue record as well as Arazi No. 69 Area 0.1940 hectare which is recorded as Khalihan in the revenue record situated in Village-Paksarai (Chayal), Pargana and Tehsil-Chayal, District- Kaushambi." 3. On 22.01.2026 following order was passed by this Court in the present writ petition:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.P. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Pramod Kumar holding brief of Mr. Arvind Kumar, respondent No.6 and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot in question is recorded as khad gaddha in the revenue record and an order for ejectment and damages has been passed in respect to the plot in question, as such authorities be directed to take Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Singh Yadav, Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arvind Kumar, Azad Rai, C.S.C., Jitendra Kumar Pandey Ghanshyam Kunwar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) appropriate steps for removal of encroachment from the plot in question. 3. Mr. Pramod Kumar holding brief of Mr. Arvind Kumar, respondent No.6 submitted that instant public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner cannot be entertained as petitioner's father has filed a Writ Petition, bearing Writ B No.10874 of 1997 before this Court in respect to the proceeding initiated by the gaon sabha/state in respect to plot, which is recorded as pond. He submitted that petitioner's father has expired and petitioner's substitution application is pending in the aforementioned writ petition. He submitted that the aforementioned fact has not been disclosed in the instant public interest litigation as such the instant public interest litigation is liable to be dismissed with cost. 4. Put up this matter along with record of Writ B No.10874 of 1997 on 12.2.2026 as fresh. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall address the court on the next date as to why fact regarding pendency of Writ B No.10874 of 1997 has not been disclosed in the instant public interest litigation as well as petitioner shall file supplementary affidavit explaining the aforementioned fact." 4. The record of Writ - B No. 10874 of 1997 has come before this Court today. A perusal of the said writ petition shows that the father of the petitioner was declared bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of an area of 5 bigha and 3 biswa in Plot No. 71, situated in Village Paksarai, Tehsil Chayal, District Allahabad. The order of declaration of his right under Section 122-B(4F) was set aside, which was upheld by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, which is subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid writ petition. In the said writ petition a substitution application has been filed to bring on record the heirs of deceased sole petitioner in which petitioner no. 1/1 is the petitioner of the present PIL. 5. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that Plot No. 70, area 0.1710 hectare, recorded as Khad Ka Gaddha (Manure Pit) in the revenue records and Plot No. 69, area 0.1940 hectare, recorded as Khalihan, are not the subject matter of Writ - B No. 10874 of 1997. 6. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the present PIL, it is evident that the petitioner has a remedy of redressal of his grievance under WPIL No. 3933 of 2025 2 Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amaruddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.655 of 2026, decided on 18.03.2026, has held that the authorities under the Revenue Code have inherent jurisdiction to prevent the misuse of public property and a public interest litigation petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is meritless and an abuse of process of law. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the present PIL is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate authority. If any such application is filed by the petitioner, it shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law. May 15, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WPIL No. 3933 of 2025 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad