Allahabad High Court
NAVMI MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner's prayer for eviction of the allottees is misconceived and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a court direction to preserve plots 378 and 380, recorded as Banjar, and to evict private allottees occupying them. The respondents argued that two orders under Section 123(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, had already been passed and that the plots were not Gaon Sabha land, so no court interference was warranted. The petitioner contested the legality of the leases granted to the occupants, claiming they were not eligible under the law. The Court examined the submissions and found that the petitioner’s claim was limited to the entitlement of the lease beneficiaries, not the validity of the Section 123 orders, and held that the prayer for eviction was misconceived. It directed the petitioner to seek relief under Sections 66 and 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court can direct eviction of allottees from plots recorded as Banjar under a public interest litigation.
- Whether the leases granted to the occupants are valid and can be challenged in this proceeding.
- Whether the existence of orders under Section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, bars any further judicial intervention.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- land reform
- eviction
- Banjar land
- Section 123
- U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act
- U.P. Revenue Code
- lease validity
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3544 of 2025
Navmi Maurya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Prem Bahadur Singh, holding brief of Sri R.
P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities
to ensure preservation of plot nos.378 and 380, recorded as Banjar, in its original
shape, size and place, situated in Molnapur, Nathanpatti Passipur, Kaptanganj,
Alahani, Terahi, Tehsildar Budhanpur, District Azamgarh.
3. On instructions received from Tehsildar Budhanpur, District Azamgarh, this Court
passed following order on 20.11.2025:-
"1. Instruction dated 13.11.2025 sent by Tehsildar, Budhanpur, Azamgarh
is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the state-respondent and Mr.
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the gaon sabha.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the entry of
the plot in question, the private respondent should be evicted from the
plot in question.
4. Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
on the basis of instruction dated 13.11.2025 submitted that no interference
is required in the matter as two orders have been passed in the proceeding
under Section 123 (1) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act which are annexed along
with instruction. He further submitted that plot in question at present is
not gaon sabha plot as such no action can be taken by the authorities.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is disputing the fact mentioned in the
WPIL No. 3544 of 2025
2
instruction.
6. Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
is directed to serve copy of the instruction during course of the day.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file reply to the facts mentioned
in the instruction as well as order annexed along with instruction.
8. Put up this matter as fresh on 8.12.2025.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, objection has been filed by the petitioner
bringing on record the documents to show that lease granted in favour of encroachers
are not in accordance with law as they were not eligible.
5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that
agricultural, abadi lease etc. were granted in the name of allottees, whereas orders
have been passed in favour of some of occupants where benefit under Section 123 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 have been extended to
them. In such circumstances, no direction can be issued by this Court in the present
PIL.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. In the objection filed by petitioner, the fact of grant of lease and orders passed
under Section 123 of the Act of 1950 has not been disputed. Only the entitlement of
beneficiary has been challenged.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer of petitioner for eviction of the allottees from
plot nos.378 and 380 is misconceived. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of
lease in favour of allottees, he has remedy of moving an application under Sections
66/128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
May 18, 2026
Ashok Kr.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…