Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50518 (ALL)

HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WPIL/1086/2025 · 2025-07-28

Chandra Kumar Rai

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125595 Court No. - 37 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1086 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archit Mandhyan Counsel for Respondent :- Girijesh Kumar Gupta,C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Mantosh Singh holding the brief of Mr. Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the gaon Sabha and Mr. G.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief: "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to decide the application dated 21.11.2024 under Sections 104, 105 and 74 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 not to give possession on the said land to the respondent No.3." 3.On 17.05.2025 following order has been passed by this Court:- "1. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that affidavit of petitioner has not been filed, as such, the instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained. 2. Mr. G.K. Gupta, learned counsel submitted that an order dated 2.12.2023 under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed for recording the name of Smt. Rinku Tomar wife of Shri Dharmendra Singh on the basis of registered sale deed dated 7.3.2020 in respect to the plot in question, as such, the instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner is granted one week time to obtain instruction about the order dated 2.12.2023 as well as the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Put up this matter as fresh on 29.5.2025" 4. Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that affidavit of the petitioner has not been filed in support of the instant public interest litigation, as such the instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained. 5. Mr. G.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that in respect of the plot in question order under Section 34/35 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed in favour of Smt. Urmila W/o Sri Dharampal to record her name over the plot in question on the basis of the registered will deed. He further submitted that against the order passed under Section 34/35 of U.P.Revenue code, 2006 appeal under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 filed by the petitioner himself has been decided by the Sub Divisional Officer. He further submitted that petitioner has filed revision No.00093 of 2021 computerized case No.C202111000000093 under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue code, 2006 before the Commissioner, which is pending . He further submitted that fact regarding the pendancy of revenue proceedings before the Revenue Court in respect to the plot in question initiated by the petitioners himself has not been disclosed in the instant petition, as such the instant petition should be dismissed with costs. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner in respect to plot in question is pending before the Commissioner in respect to the plot in question. 8. Petitioner has not disclosed the fact regarding the pendency of the proceeding in respect to plot in question before the Revenue Court as such, the instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained. 9. Private dispute cannot be settled by way of public interest litigation as such filing of instant public interest litigation is abuse of process of law. 10 Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case the instant public interest litigation is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad