HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3544 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Prem Bahadur Singh, holding brief of Sri R. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to ensure preservation of plot nos.378 and 380, recorded as Banjar, in its original shape, size and place, situated in Molnapur, Nathanpatti Passipur, Kaptanganj, Alahani, Terahi, Tehsildar Budhanpur, District Azamgarh. 3. On instructions received from Tehsildar Budhanpur, District Azamgarh, this Court passed following order on 20.11.2025:- "1. Instruction dated 13.11.2025 sent by Tehsildar, Budhanpur, Azamgarh is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the state-respondent and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the gaon sabha. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the entry of the plot in question, the private respondent should be evicted from the plot in question. 4. Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents on the basis of instruction dated 13.11.2025 submitted that no interference is required in the matter as two orders have been passed in the proceeding under Section 123 (1) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act which are annexed along with instruction. He further submitted that plot in question at present is not gaon sabha plot as such no action can be taken by the authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is disputing the fact mentioned in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Navmi Maurya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) instruction. 6. Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is directed to serve copy of the instruction during course of the day. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file reply to the facts mentioned in the instruction as well as order annexed along with instruction. 8. Put up this matter as fresh on 8.12.2025. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, objection has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record the documents to show that lease granted in favour of encroachers are not in accordance with law as they were not eligible. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that agricultural, abadi lease etc. were granted in the name of allottees, whereas orders have been passed in favour of some of occupants where benefit under Section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 have been extended to them. In such circumstances, no direction can be issued by this Court in the present PIL. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the objection filed by petitioner, the fact of grant of lease and orders passed under Section 123 of the Act of 1950 has not been disputed. Only the entitlement of beneficiary has been challenged. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer of petitioner for eviction of the allottees from plot nos.378 and 380 is misconceived. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of lease in favour of allottees, he has remedy of moving an application under Sections 66/128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. May 18, 2026 Ashok Kr. WPIL No. 3544 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad