HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2983 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned standing counsel for the state- respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for the following reliefs:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus, directing the respondent authority to comply the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned court of Tahsildar, Tahsil Sahjanwa district Gorakhpur, evict the illegal encroachment/possession of the respondent No.6 over the khalihan as Gata No.230 area 0.101 hectare and Arazi no. 235 area 0.0120 hectare as rasta situated at Village-Tandwa kala Tehsil-sahjanwa, District-Gorakhpur." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed by the Tehsildar on 15.5.2024 for ejectment and damages in respect to the plot in question, the order has not been given effect to. He submitted that appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has also been dismissed by the appellate court. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of illegal encroachment from the plot in question in pursuance of the order dated 15.5.2024. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Virendra Pratap @ Virendra Pratap @ Virendre Prtap .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the instant public interest litigation for implementation of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not maintainable. 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 the order for ejectment and damages has been passed by the Tehsildar in respect to the plot in question on 15.5.2024 and order of Tehsildar has been maintained in appeal. 7. For execution of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, remedy is provided under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, as such, the instant P.I.L. cannot be maintained for implementation of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. The P.I.L. is accordingly dismissed with observation that proper proceeding can be initiated according to the provision contained under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. October 8, 2025 C.Prakash WPIL No. 2983 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad