Allahabad High Court

VED PRAKASH PATHAKversusSTATE OF UP AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The petition is disposed with a direction to enforce the eviction order as the appeal under Section 67(5) has been dismissed and no other legal impediment exists.

Summary

Petitioner Ved Prakash Pathak filed a PIL alleging that respondents 5, 6 and 7 had encroached upon Plot No.336, recorded as a pond, in Village Pariyat, Jaunpur. An eviction order dated 10.03.2025 issued by the Tehsildar had not been executed, prompting the petition. The Court directed the respondents to file counter‑affidavits and ordered the District Magistrate and Tehsildar to submit affidavits explaining the delay. The District Magistrate disclosed that an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had been filed and was dismissed on 27.09.2025. On the basis of the dismissal and the absence of any stay, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the Tehsildar to enforce the eviction order and to conclude the proceedings under Section 67 of the Revenue Code.

Issues considered

What legal impediments, if any, prevent the execution of the eviction order dated 10.03.2025?
Does the filing and dismissal of an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 bar the enforcement of the eviction order?

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67, 67(5)

Subjects

encroachment
eviction order
public interest litigation
Section 67
U.P. Revenue Code
execution of court order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2722 of 2025

Ved Prakash Pathak
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of Up And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Gunja Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Maurya, holding brief of Sri Akhilesh
Kumar Tiwari and learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents. Sri B. K. Tripathi, Advocate has
accepted notice on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha.

2. In the present petition, following order was passed on 11.09.2025:

"The petitioner alleges encroachment by respondent nos.5,6 and 7 in Plot No.336/0.020
recorded as Gaddha, situate in Village Pariyat, Pargana Barsathi, Tehsil Mariyahu, District

Jaunpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the Court's attention to the extract of

the Khatauni at Page no. 17 of the paper book, where Plot No.336 is recorded as Garaha

(pond).

An eviction order dated 10.03.2025 has been passed by the Tehsildar, Madiyahun, District

Jaunpur in Case No. 469 of 2025 directing eviction of the encroachers. The grievance of

the petitioner is that the said eviction order has not been executed so far.

Issue notice.

Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 is accepted by Mr. Swatantra Kumar, learned

Standing Counsel. Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of

respondent no. 4. Both the learned counsel for the respondents are granted two weeks time

to file a counter affidavit.

Steps to serve respondent nos.5 to 7 shall be taken by RPAD within three days.

List for admission on 26.09.2025 at the top of the list along with a report regarding service
WPIL No. 2722 of 2025
2

and the postal track attached. The office shall also put in a report regarding status of

pleadings. Apart from the counter affidavits to be filed by the respondents, the District

Magistrate, Jaunpur and the Tehsildar, Tehsil Madiyahun, District Jaunpur shall file their

own affidavit on or before the next date fixed showing cause why the said order of eviction

has not been executed so far. In case any appeal(s) has been filed from the said order, the

number of the appeal(s), current status and the authority before whom it is pending shall be

indicated in the affidavit. In the event, no appeal has been filed, or if filed has been rejected

with affirmation of the order, the District Magistrate and the Tehsildar will indicate, if

there is any order of stay granted by a Court of superior jurisdiction. In case neither

contingency is there, preventing eviction, the District Magistrate and the Tehsildar will

show cause why the eviction order has not been executed so far.

Let this order be communicated to the the District Magistrate, Jaunpur and the Tehsildar,

Tehsil Madiyahun, District Jaunpur through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur

by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur
has filed his personal affidavit stating that against the order of eviction
dated 10.03.2025, an appeal was filed under Section 67(5) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 by the respondent nos.5 to 7 in which hearing took
place on 24.09.2025 and the date was fixed for 27.09.2025 for delivery of
judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that said appeal has been
dismissed on 27.09.2025.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with
direction to the Tehsildar, Mariyahoon, District Jaunpur to ensure that
order of eviction dated 10.03.2025, passed by him, is enforced and the
proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are
brought to its logical end, if there is no other legal impediment.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 18, 2026
Ashok Kr.

Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…