Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68380 Court No. - 49 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 502 of 2025 Petitioner :- Parvez Alam Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5, the Gaon Sabha, Mr. Mohammed Iftekhar Farooqui learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the State respondents. 2. In compliance with our order dated 15.04.2025, the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar has filed his personal affidavit. The affidavit discloses that the District Magistrate inspected the spot in Village Semri Sotiyadadi, Tappa Sahila, Pargana and Tehsil Naugarh, Siddharth Nagar on 21.04.2025, together with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugarh, the Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, and the Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority of India and others. He caused Plot No. 12, a recorded pond, to be demarcated, using the Total Station Method. After undertaking inspection of these plots, the District Magistrate, in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of his personal affidavit, has averred : 7. That in order to further clarify the real nature and existing status of Gata No. 12 (area 0.0240 hectares), Respondent No. 2, in the presence of the aforesaid officers and revenue personnel, personally visited the disputed site at Village Semri Sotiyadadi on 21.04.2025 at around 4:00 PM. Photographs of the disputed pond (Gadahi) were taken, and its measurement and demarcation were conducted under his direct supervision using total station method. The photographs, captured via GPS mapping on the "Google Bhitpara Uttar Pradesh Map Camera," clearly demonstrate the physical existence of the said pond. Copy of Photographs are annexed herewith and collectively marked as Annexures-P.A.2 to this affidavit. 8. That in compliance with the order of Hon'ble High Court's dated 15.04.2025, deponent/Respondent no. 2 conducted a fair and proper measurement and demarcation of the land in question (Plot No. 12/0.0240 hectares) using total station method and found no encroachment or illegal occupation by any private individual or by Respondents Nos. 6 to 9 over any portion of the disputed land, namely, the said pond (Gadahi). 3. We have perused the annexed photographs, where, the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar has been identified before us by Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel. We are not impressed with the stand taken by the District Magistrate that there was no encroachment in Plot No. 12/0.0240 hectare. A bare perusal of the photographs, particularly one at Page No. 12 of the personal affidavit of the District Magistrate shows that there is no pond, but a freshly dug up cavity in the earth, with lots of excavated material lying on its margins. Apparently, this is the result of machine work hurriedly done, employing heavy machines. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the encroachment was, indeed, there in Plot No. 12, about which, the District Magistrate has incorrectly said that there was none. But, learned Counsel for the petitioner says also that the encroachment was, indeed, removed by the District Magistrate and his men, employing a Joseph Cyril Bamford (JCB) machine. 5. The submission made by Mr. Srivastava, on the basis of instructions received, appears to be correct. The photograph at Page No. 12 does show hurriedly done work. The photograph, apparently, does not show an existing pond on the spot. If there was a pond on the spot, it would have been shown as such, and not in the form of a deep cavity in the earth, with soil removed and collected on the fringes. If the plot was vacant and the pond was not in existence, still the plot, with the recorded pond, would have been shown. The act of hurriedly digging up the plot, ex facie, suggests that there was some offending construction, structure, fixture or encroachment in Plot No. 12, that has been caused to be removed by the District Magistrate during or immediately before his inspection by his officers. 6. Be that as it may, Mr. Srivastava acknowledges the fact that now, there is no encroachment. 7. In this view of the matter, no further orders are required to be made on this petition. It is, accordingly, consigned to record. 8. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar. Order Date :- May 1, 2025 I. Batabyal (J.J. Munir) Judge Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad