HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 679 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: "1) Issue an order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the revenue authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by the encroachers over the Govt. land which is Public land bearing plot no. 2016 and 2093 situated at Nagar Palika Parishad Konch, District Jalaun. II) Issue an order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the revenue authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.2.2025 according to law within stipulated period. III) Issue a suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 3. The instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred by the petitioner with the grievance that certain public utility land, laying in the vicinity of Nagar Palika Parishad, Konch, District Jalaun, have been collusively encroached upon by politically affluent people. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has placed detailed instructions before us, which are taken on record. On the strength of the said instructions, it is stated that various applications were made by local residents of the area for the construction of a road for commuters/devotees to the local councillor, who thereafter forwarded the same to the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Konch, Jalaun for consideration. In Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shanti Dhar Dwivedi Anil Kumar Patairaya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) pursuance of the said representation, a tender/notice dated 23.01.2024 was issued for the construction of an interlocking road from Kali Mata Temple to Bakhsheshwar Temple in Ward No. 01, Mohalla Gandhi Nagar. It is further submitted that, as per the instructions, the said road was earlier an unpaved track with potholes, causing inconvenience to the public, particularly during festivals such as Navratri and Dussehra. The proposal was duly placed before the competent committee and, upon verification by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, the work was found necessary in public interest. Consequently, the Municipal Council carried out the construction work along with proper drainage and pipelining facilities. It is submitted that, as is apparent, the construction was undertaken after due consideration and in the interest of the public, and therefore the same cannot be characterised as an encroachment. 4. Confronted with the said position, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the petition and submits that the aforesaid approval is merely a camouflage and that the said construction has been undertaken to fulfil personal vendetta; therefore, the indulgence of this Court is essential. He further submits that the instant matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Public Interest Litigation No. 2923 of 2025, Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 12 others, dated 09.10.2025. 5. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and upon perusal of the record, as well as the decision rendered by this Court in Manoj Kumar Singh (supra), we find that once a categorical stand has already been taken by the respondents that the construction has been carried out after proper appreciation of facts and spot inspection by the authorities, at this stage no relief can be granted to the petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation specially in light of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is a self-contained Code providing a complete mechanism to redress such grievances. Therefore, we find that the instant proceeding is not maintainable. However, it is always open to the petitioner to invoke proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid liberty, the instant petition stands dismissed. March 19, 2026 Mukesh Kr. WPIL No. 679 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad