Allahabad High Court

VEERU @ BEERU PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The court held that the existence of the temple does not establish it as a public temple and, in the absence of documentary evidence, the petition cannot be granted; the petitioner must pursue a suit to prove the public right.

Summary

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the removal of alleged encroachments on land identified as a Devsthan (Hanuman temple) in village Unkraon, claiming it is a public temple. The court examined the survey report, which showed a temple but lacked clear identification of the plot and documentary evidence of its public status. It held that mere existence of a temple does not prove it is a public temple and that the petitioner’s claim must be proved by proper evidence, not merely affidavits. Consequently, the court declined to issue any mandamus or demolition order. It directed the petitioner to file a suit under common law to establish a public right over the temple and the land. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the temple on the disputed plot qualifies as a public temple warranting protection from encroachment.
Whether the court can issue a writ of mandamus to remove encroachments based solely on affidavits without documentary proof.
What is the appropriate legal remedy for the petitioner to assert a public right over the temple land.

Subjects

public temple
encroachment
writ of mandamus
public trust
property rights
PIL
land survey
Uttar Pradesh

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2341 of 2026

Veeru @ Beeru Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukhtesh Kumar, Rajesh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi for the
respondent no. 4 Gaon Sabha.

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

"I- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the
concerned respondents to remove the illegal encroachment/building on
the arazi no.351 Abadi/inhabited category (6) land, which has been
shown as Devsthal bhumi (Hanuman Mandir) as per the report of
Lekhpal/revenue record serial no. 198, provisional plot no. 198, situated
at village-Ukranv/Unkraon, Tehsil - Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur within
some specific time."

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in abadi
plot no. 351 there exist a Devsthan having a temple of Lord Hanuman
where the villagers pray. In the Gharaunis being prepared under the Uttar
Pradesh Abadi Survey and Record Operation Regulations, 2020, the
Devsthan has been allotted Plot No. 198. It is further contended that the
respondent no. 5, 6 & 7 are constructing boundary around it and are
encroaching upon the survey plot no. 198.

4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner
and perused the record.

5. The survey report annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition only
WPIL No. 2341 of 2026
2

shows that on abadi plot no. 198 there is a Devsthan having road and
pathway on three sides and house of one Vishwanath on the south. No
area of the land is mentioned. There is nothing on record to show the
identity of survey plot no. 198 in the village map. Admittedly, Devsthan
(Hanuman Ji Mandir) is an old temple constructed in the village abadi
where it is claimed that the villagers offers their prayers and as the temple
is not a private temple, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 cannot be permitted to
enclose it by a boundary wall.

6. The existence of temple in the village abadi in itself does not establish
that it is a public temple. The claim of the petitioner that the villagers
offer their prayers in the said temple existing over the village abadi plot
no. 351 is a fact which has to be proved by leading evidence, which
cannot be appreciated on the basis of affidavits, nor a direction can be
issued for demolition of any construction on the basis of affidavit in
absence of any documentary evidence on record to establish the existence
of the temple, as a public property and its area in the village abadi.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner and the villagers of
village Unkraon have an appropriate remedy in filing a suit to establish
their public right by user over the temple and the land over which it
exists, by leading appropriate evidence in support of their claim.

8. The present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail
the appropriate remedy available to him under common law.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 30, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…