Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33576 (ALL)

PRADEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WPIL/643/2025 · 2025-10-08

Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 643 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court 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 remove the alleged illegal encroachment over Khasra No. 866, admeasuring 0.0630 hectares of Village-Sarna, District-Ghaziabad. 2. Allegations have been made that the great grandfather of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had filed a suit for obtaining title of the land in question, however, the same was adjudicated against them and the Court ruled that the said land was State land and that the land in question is a public utility land and therefore, the respondents be directed to remove the encroachment/illegal construction by respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 3. Instructions have been produced by counsel representing the Nagar Palika Parishad, Muradnagar (Ghaziabad), inter alia, indicating that the land in question is recorded as Abadi in 6(2) category, wherein the house of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was standing, which has been demolished and is being reconstructed. 4. A perusal of the petition and the averments made therein clearly reflect that the land in question is in possession of the family of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for altealst three generations. The petitioner is aged about 60 years and as to what prompted the petitioner to claim the land in question, wherein the house of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was standing for all these Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Kumar, Shobhit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhanshu Srivastava (A.C.S.C.), Baleshwar Chaturvedi, Mahesh Sharma, Manu Saxena Pradeep Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and 5 others .....Respondent(s) years, as a public utility land, has not been indicated. 5. Filing of PILs, essentially on account of personal vengeance and/or making use of certain documents, wherein the local authority has specifically indicated the possession of the respondents over a period of time, cannot be countenanced. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. October 9, 2025 Mukesh Pal/P.Sri. WPIL No. 643 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad