Allahabad High Court

ABDULLAHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The Court held that, because an eviction order under Section 67 is already pending a restoration application, the petition requires no further enquiry and the matter must be decided by the Tehsildar.

Summary

The petitioner sought a writ directing the State to remove an encroachment by respondent No.4 on a pond and to compel the Tehsildar to conclude pending proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petition relied on an eviction order dated 11‑April‑2025 that had not been implemented. Respondent No.4 contended that the order was ex‑parte and that a restoration application filed on 23‑May‑2025 was pending before the Tehsildar. The Court observed that the eviction order is already under consideration through the restoration application and that no fresh enquiry is required. Accordingly, the petition was disposed, with a direction to the Tehsildar to decide the restoration application within two months and to complete the Section‑67 proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should intervene to enforce the eviction order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the pending restoration application bars the petitioner's relief.
Whether the Court should direct the Tehsildar to decide the restoration application within a specified time.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

public interest litigation
encroachment
eviction order
Section 67
U.P. Revenue Code
restoration application
Tehsildar
pond

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2322 of 2026

Abdullah
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sumit Kumar Srivastava, Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 3, Sri Mayank
Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv Sagar Singh for the
respondent no. 4 and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 5 Gaon Sabha.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:

"i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to
remove the encroachment made by respondent no.4 over the pond in Arazi no. 254
Rakba 0.004 hectare (pond) by the Respondent No.4, which is recorded as pond
situated at Village Sonpipari Khurd, Tappa Lehda, Tehsil: Pharenda, District-
Maharjganj.

ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent no.2
Tehsildar, Tehsil Pharenda District Maharajganj to forthwith conclude the
proceedings pertaining to case no. T202305470408874 under Section 67 pending
before respondent No.2 within a stipulated period preferably within one month and
further to remove the illegal encroachment made by the respondent no. 4."

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in proceeding
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated against the
respondent no. 4, an order of eviction and recovery of damages was
passed on 11.4.2025, however, it has not been given effect to till date and
the illegal encroachment made by the respondent no. 4 over the plot in
question still exist.
WPIL No. 2322 of 2026
2

4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 states
that the order dated 11.4.2025 was an ex-parte order, against which a
restoration application has been filed by the respondent no. 4 on
23.5.2025, which is pending consideration before the Tehsildar Pharenda,
District-Maharjganj.

5. In view of the fact that the appropriate proceedings under law have
already been initiated against the encroacher, no further enquiry is
required to be directed by this Court in the present petition. The order of
eviction has already been passed against which a restoration application is
pending claiming the order to be ex-parte.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with
direction to the Tehsildar concerned to decide the aforementioned
restoration application filed by the respondent no. 4 against the order
dated 11.4.2025, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within
a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of
this order, and ensure that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code
are brought to its logical end.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 29, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…