Allahabad High Court

RAM DATT SINGH YADAV AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 9 March 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The Court held that the pending Section 67 proceeding must be decided by the Tehsildar after hearing the parties, and therefore dismissed the PIL without granting mandamus.

Summary

The petitioners, Ram Datt Singh Yadav and two others, filed a PIL seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State and its officials to remove an alleged illegal encroachment by respondent No. 6 on a plot recorded as Navin Parti in Ghazipur district. The State submitted that a proceeding under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (Case No. T202514291108295) was already pending before the Tehsildar. The private respondents argued that an exchange proceeding concerning the same land was also pending, making the Section 67 action an abuse of process. The Court examined the submissions and noted that the Section 67 proceeding was indeed pending. It declined to issue the mandamus and instead directed the Tehsildar to decide the pending revenue case after affording a proper hearing to the parties, thereby disposing of the PIL.

Issues considered

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to remove the alleged encroachment when a Section 67 proceeding under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending.
Whether initiating the Section 67 proceeding constitutes an abuse of process in view of the pending exchange proceeding.
Whether the Tehsildar should be directed to decide the pending revenue case expeditiously after hearing the parties.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

public interest litigation
mandamus
illegal encroachment
U.P. Revenue Code
Section 67
land revenue proceedings
Tehsildar
pending proceedings

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2187 of 2025

Ram Datt Singh Yadav And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Udai Shankar Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.,
Vinayak Varma

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Shri U.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Lekhraj
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and Mr.
Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed following relief
:-

"issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding and directing
the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to remove the illegal encroachment made by
respondent no. 6 over Plot No. 816 area 0.015 hectare recorded as Navin Parti in
Revenue record and situated in Village- Maheshpur Kala, Pargana- Mohammadabad,
Tehsil- Kasimabad, District- Ghazipur, within stipulated time period."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plot in question is
recorded as Navin Parti and respondent no. 6 is in illegal possession over the
same. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of
encroachment from the plot in question.

4. Personal affidavit as well as counter affidavit has been filed by the State
in compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.08.2025 stating that
proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been
registered against the respondent no. 6 as Case No. T202514291108295
(Gaon Sabha v. Dinesh Yadav).
WPIL No. 2187 of 2025
2

5. Mr. Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents
submitted that exchange proceeding at the instance of institution which is
situated over the plot in question is pending, as such, initiation of proceeding
under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is abuse of process of law.

6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 67 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the Tehsildar.

8. According to the learned counsel for the private respondents, exchange
proceeding at the instance of institution is pending, as such, institution can
take objection before Tehsildar regarding pendency of exchange proceeding
with respect to the plot in question.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is finally disposed of directing the
respondent no. 4- Tehsildar, Tehsil- Kasimabad, District- Ghazipur to decide
the Case No. T202514291108295 (Gaon Sabha v. Dinesh Yadav) under
Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in accordance with law, after
affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously.

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
March 10, 2026
Rama Kant

Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…