Allahabad High Court
MINTOO PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The PIL is dismissed for lack of merit and as a proxy petition.
Summary
Mintoo Prasad filed a public interest litigation challenging alleged unauthorized possession of land (gata no.1) by private respondents. The State's standing counsel submitted that demarcation proceedings had already identified Brij Lal, not Chanda Devi, as the unauthorized possessor, and that Brij Lal had obtained interim protection in a separate writ petition. The petitioner offered no fresh evidence of any ongoing encroachment beyond the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate's order of 17‑April‑2025. The court accepted the standing counsel's statements as credible and found the PIL to be a proxy petition lacking substantive grounds. Consequently, the court dismissed the PIL without costs and ordered the related matter to be detagged for separate hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether there is any ongoing unauthorized possession of gata no.1 justifying the PIL.
- Whether the PIL is a proxy petition filed on behalf of Brij Lal and therefore untenable.
Legislation cited
- Not specified — s. 67
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- unauthorized possession
- land demarcation
- proxy petition
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2047 of 2025
Mintoo Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Munna Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brijesh Kumar Mishra, C.S.C., Sudhir
Bharti
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.
WPIL No. 2047 of 2025
2
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.
(Vivek Saran,J.)
April 29, 2026
Gaurav Kuls
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…