Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115976-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 642 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and 6 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramakant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Manu Ghildyal, S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition purportedly in public interest has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action in respect to illegal construction/widening of road over Gata No. 819 area about 0.1780 hectare recorded as pond and Arazi No. 825Ka area about 5.8600 hectare recorded as abadi situated in village Niyamatabad, Pargana Dhoos, Tehsil - Mugalsarai, District - Chandauli. 2. Submission has been made that the respondents are widening a two lane road into a four lane road whereby, a large number of houses would get affected/demolished and that by providing the four lane wide road from within the village, the same would result in putting the population around it in great jeopardy and therefore, the respondents be restrained from widening the road in question. 3. Submission has also been made pertaining to the land of pond being used for the purpose. 4. Detailed instructions have been produced by learned Standing Counsel inter-alia indicating that looking to the fact that there was huge pressure of vehicles on the two lane road, the said road is being widened to a four lane. For the said purpose, the land acquisition is under progress, wherein as many as 84% of the house owners have given their written consent and that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, a part of his boundary wall is getting affected for which he would be given due compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submission that the respondents are not justified in broadening the road by demolishing large number of private constructions and therefore, they may be restrained from undertaking widening of the road. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, based on the instructions, opposed the petition. 7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In so far as the plea pertaining to the land of pond being acquired for the purpose is concerned, apparently in none of the representations, a plea in this regard has been made. However, for the purpose of filing the present Public Interest Litigation, a plea in this regard has been taken. The respondents have indicated that on land recorded as pond, there is a very mild curve and the rest of the land is not getting affected. 9. Besides the above, once 84% of the house owners whose properties are getting affected on account of the acquisition, have given their written consent, which have been produced for our perusal, the objection sought to be raised by the petitioner purportedly in public interest, cannot be countenanced. 10. There is no substance in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025/nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad