HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2129 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Saqib Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha. 2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concern to evict the illegal encroachment/ possession of the respondent no.6 and others over the arazi No. 289 area 0.400 hectare mentioned as pond/ pokhra recorded in the revenue record shrinked by the respondent no.6 and others by constructing tin shade situated at Village Rasulpur, Tehsil and Police Station Rasra District Ballia. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respondent authority to restore the chakroad to its original shape in pursuance of order dated 13.3.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in P.I.L No. 53946 of 2017 (Ram Lakhan Vs. State of U.P. and 8 Others)." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot No. 289 area 0.400 hectare is recorded as pond in the revenue record, as such, the authorities be directed to take appropriate steps to restore the pond in its original position. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saqib Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Ran Vijay Singh Anjani Kumar Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 submitted that respondent no.6 is recorded owner of plot No. 288 area 0.061 hectare. He submitted that proceeding under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated and revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the order dated 24.5.2025 passed in the proceeding 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for necessary relief is pending before Commissioner Azamgarh Division Azamgarh. He submitted that without disclosing the complete fact regarding plot in question, the instant public interest litigation has been filed by petitioner. He submitted that instant public interest litigation is not maintainable in view of the pendency of the case under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before Commissioner in the form of revision. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that plot No. 289 is recorded as pond in the revenue records and plot No. 288 is recorded in the name of respondent no.6. 7. The proceeding under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 at the instance of respondent no.6 is pending before Commissioner as revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. In view of the pendency of the proceeding under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the instant public interest litigation cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed accordingly. September 17, 2025 Vandana Y. WPIL No. 2129 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad