Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2047 DAILYLAW 1 (ALL)

MINTOO PRASAD v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WPIL/2047/2025 · 2026-04-28

Public Interest Litigationbody2047

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2047 of 2025 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Sri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents. 2. The learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that in the instructions which have been sought in the matter, it has been stated that pursuant to the demarcation proceedings, it was found that the private respondent no.6 Chanda Devi was not in unauthorized possession of gata no.1 whereas it was Brij Lal who was found to be in unauthorized possession and pursuant to which the proceedings under Section 67 were initiated. He further submits that the instant PIL appears to be a proxy petition at the behest of the said Brij Lal and as far as Brij Lal is concerned, he has already approached this Court by means of a Writ-C No.36797 of 2023 wherein by order dated 2.11.2023, an interim protection has been granted. The factual position as pointed out by learned Standing Counsel is not being denied by any of the parties. The copy of the instructions are retained on record and marked as "X". 3. In so far as the instant PIL is concerned, apart from relying upon the order dated 17.4.2025 of the SDM, there is nothing on record which the petitioner could point out to demonstrate that there is some sort of encroachment still existing. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Munna Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brijesh Kumar Mishra, C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Mintoo Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the PIL is dismissed. 5. No order as to cost. 6. Let connected matter be detagged and listed on its own turn before the appropriate Bench. April 29, 2026 Gaurav Kuls WPIL No. 2047 of 2025 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad