Allahabad High Court
VIJENDRA NATH GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
No illegal encroachment was found on Plot No.127; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a court order directing the respondent to remove an alleged illegal encroachment by respondent no.4 on Plot No.127, recorded as a rasta in revenue records in Rampura Sultanpur, Bareilly. The respondent submitted a DDM instruction dated 5 May 2026 stating that Plot No.127 is a rasta covered with bricks and that the construction by respondent no.4 is actually on his own bhumidhari land, Plot No.147. The court examined the DDM instruction and a Lekhpal report dated 2 February 2026, which confirmed that a brick road exists over Plot No.127 and that the construction extends only over Plot No.147. The judge found no evidence of encroachment on the rasta plot. Consequently, the petition was held to be misconceived and was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether respondent no.4 has illegally encroached upon Plot No.127, recorded as rasta, in violation of revenue records
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- encroachment
- land revenue records
- rasta
- bhumidhari
- illegal construction
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1266 of 2026
Vijendra Nath Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lalit Kumar, Nirbhay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Lalit Kuma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Sher Bahadur
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent no.2 to remove the illegal encroachment made by respondent
no.4 over Plot No.127 area 0.1900 hectare, recorded as Rasta in the
relevant revenue records, relating to Village Rampura Sultanpur, Tehsil
Faridpur, District Bareilly.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court the instructions
dated 5.5.2026 sent by Deputy District Magistrate, Tehsil Faridpur,
District Bareilly, which is taken on record.
4. Perusal of the aforesaid instructions shows that Plot No.127 is recorded
as Rasta and is covered with bricks. Adjacent Plot No.147 recorded in the
name of Jitendra Tomar son of Balveer Singh as Bhumidhari consists of
Abadi and Road. The fact is also substantiated by report of Lekhpal dated
2.2.2026 filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The construction raised
by respondent no.4 is over Plot No.147, which is his Bhumidhari land.
According to the instructions, there is no encroachment over Plot No.127.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the instructions alongwith report of Lekhpal, from
which it is evident that a brick road is laid over Plot No.127 and some
portion of Plot No.147. The construction raised by respondent no.4 is on
WPIL No. 1266 of 2026
2
his Bhumidhari plot no.147 having no encroachment over plot no.127
recorded as Rasta.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition appears to be
misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 18, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…