Allahabad High Court
TEJ BAHADURversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 19 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The PIL is dismissed as it is not maintainable due to the pendency of a proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State respondents to remove alleged illegal encroachment on pond land in Jaunpur and to act as per an apex court direction. The State, through its standing counsel, objected, contending that a parallel proceeding under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 was already pending, making the PIL unnecessary and a misuse of the court's process. The court examined the objection and agreed that once a proceeding under the Revenue Code is underway, a PIL on the same subject is not maintainable. Relying on a prior judgment (Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2025), the court dismissed the PIL, noting that the dismissal would not prejudice the parties in the ongoing revenue proceeding. The order was passed with assistance from counsel for one of the respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 is maintainable when a proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is already pending on the same subject.
- Whether filing the PIL constitutes a misuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Writ of Mandamus
- Illegal Encroachment
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 67
- Maintainability
- Misuse of Process
- Article 226
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2479 of 2025
Tej Bahadur
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 19 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kuldeep Tripathi, Ram Charan Lal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shyam Dhar Gupta
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Singh Rana,
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. In response to the order dated 02.02.2026, Sri Ajit Singh Rana, learned
Standing Counsel has placed the detailed instructions sent by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Machhlishahar, Jaunpur dated 17.03.2026, which
is taken on record.
3. The instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs :
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to remove the illegal
encroachment over the land in Village-Sarokhanpur, Tehsil Machhali
Shahar, District-Jaunpur, bearing Gata no.266, 0.462 Hectare, land in
recorded as Jerab (Pond) in the revenue records and Gata no.267, 0.182
Hectare, recorded as 'Bheeta' in the revenue records from the illegal
possession of the respondent no.5 to20.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to 4 to take appropriate
action as per direction given by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Hinch
Lal Tiwari."
4. At the outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection qua the
maintainability of the instant PIL. He submits that in the instant matter it
WPIL No. 2479 of 2025
2
is alleged that there is certain illegal encroachment over Jerab (Pond),
which is also recorded as 'Bheeta' and the private respondents are in
illegal possession. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by
learned Single Judge in Public Interest Litigation No.2923 of 2025;
Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 12 others dated 09.10.2025
and submits that in the light of the said judgment, the instant PIL is not
maintainable as the exhaustive procedure is enshrined under Section 67 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code"). He submits that the said
proceeding under the Code is also commenced.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the objection raised by
learned Standing Counsel, we find that once the proceeding under Section
67 of the Code is on, the filing of instant proceeding is misuse of the
process of law. We are also in respectful agreement with the judgment
passed by learned Single Judge in Manoj Kumar Singh (Supra).
6. Accordingly, the instant PIL is dismissed. However, we observe that
dismissal of instant PIL would not prejudice the rights of the parties in the
ongoing proceeding under Section 67 of the Code.
7. This order has been passed with due assistance of Sri S.D. Gupta,
learned counsel for Nagar Palika- respondent no.4.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
March 19, 2026
Priya
Digitally signed by :-
PRIYA KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…