Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 85108 (ALL)

PYARE LAL v. STATE OF U.P. AND 9 OTHERS

WPIL/2216/2025 · 2025-08-11

J J Munir

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136803 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *** PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) NO. 2216 OF 2025 Pyare Lal ….Petitioner Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others ….Respondents Appearance :- For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumr Patel, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Amrita Singh, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Amrita Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner has come up with a prayer that this Court may issue a mandamus to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Soraon, District Prayagraj to decide his representation dated 28.05.2025, complaining of encroachment in Plot No. 559/0.2570 hectare, 861/0.9530 hectare and 866/0.1200 hectare, situate in Village Jogipur, Police Station Mau Aima, Prayagraj. 3. In exercise of our writ jurisdiction, we do not sit to recommend for favourable consideration of the case of one litigant to the other. After all, the petitioner and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are both litigants before this Court. That apart, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not the competent Court No.-49 Page -2- of 2 authority to take cognizance of encroachment of a public land/public utility land. It is the Tahsildar who is empowered under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 20061. If the petitioner complains of encroachment, he can always pray that we should compel performance of the statutory duty by a public officer, the Tahsildar, Soraon, Prayagraj in this case, under Section 67 of the Code. But, a mere prayer for a direction to a public authority to consider the petitioner’s case is no more than a recommendation to that authority for favourable consideration, which, we think, we ought not issue. 4. This petition, accordingly, stands dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to bring a fresh petition seeking appropriate relief on the same cause of action. 5. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Soraon, Prayagraj through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. Allahabad August 12, 2025 I. Batabyal (J.J. MUNIR) JUDGE Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No 1 ‘Code’ for short PIL No. 2216 of 2025 Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad