Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119136-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23378 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Prakash Gupta Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The following prayers have been made in the present petition:- " (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly respondent Nos.2 to 4 to conduct a fresh demarcation of Arazi No.1115A (New Arazi No.162 C), situated at Village Wajidpur @ Jajmau, Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar, and to restore possession of 83.85 square meteres of land forming part of the petitioners' Bhumidhari land wrongly handed over to the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA), Kanpur. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4-Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations/applications dated 08.11.2024, 26.03.2025, 27.03.2025 and 19.04.2025, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 2. The State-respondents are alleged to have carried out a demarcation exercise to demarcate the Banjar land in terms of an order dated 15.07.2021 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.297 of 2019 (Raj Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others). The operative part of the order containing the directions is extracted below:- " Looking to the facts aforesaid, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: 1) So far as the land of Khata No. 136 is concerned, it cannot be said to be a case of encroachment because the land belongs to a private person. If part of it is used as a pond, it is to be considered to be a private pond. Thus, question of encroachment therein does not arise. 2) So far as land of other khatas shown to be 'banjar', respondents are directed to identify their lands and after earmarking the area, to remove the encroachment, if exist. The exercise aforesaid would be initiated within a month and to be completed within a reasonable time. It goes without saying that while undertaking the exercise, as directed above, care would be taken to the judgment of the Board of Revenue. The exercise should not to offend the directions given therein and accordingly it is clarified that if any part of the land belonging to the government has been encroached, the same would be removed without further delay. The exercise for it would obviously be taken in strict compliance of the process of law. " 3. The petitioners allege that the demarcation carried out by the State is not in accordance with law and according to the petitioners although they were in possession of their own holding, in pursuance of the demarcation proceedings, they have been dispossessed from a part of their original holding measuring 83.85 sq. mtrs. In the said backdrop, petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to carry out a fresh demarcation and to restore the land, from which, the petitioners have been allegedly dispossessed in course of the demarcation proceedings. 4. The petitioners, are thus, not satisfied with the exercise carried out by the respondents and they are seeking a fresh demarcation to be carried out by the respondents to their satisfaction. 5. The right to get their holding demarcated is available to them under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, whereunder a proper application has to be filed along with shajra map etc and where after, the statutory authority carries out demarcation and if it comes to the conclusion that any lawful occupant was wrongfully dispossessed, it shall put such person in possession. 6. In view of the fact that petitioners have adequate remedy under law, we leave it open to the petitioners to avail the said remedy. It is further provided that in case, the said remedy is availed by the petitioners, the exercise carried out in the past, shall not be an impediment and the concerned authority, before which the demarcation application is filed, will proceed strictly in accordance with law. 7. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. (R.M.N.Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 22.7.2025/Amit Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad