Allahabad High Court
TARACHANDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a court direction to remove illegal encroachments on three parcels of land in Village Sultanpur, Noida Authority area. The court examined an instruction from the Tehsildar indicating that, under the amendment to sub‑section 6 of Section 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Noida Authority has jurisdiction to act against the encroachers. It was also noted that the petitioner himself had encroached on gram sabha land and that action had been taken against him by the Noida Authority. The court held that the petitioner was aware of the Noida Authority’s jurisdiction but had not made it a party to the suit, and that the petitioner could seek relief under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Consequently, the petition was deemed misconceived and dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct the removal of illegal encroachments on the specified land parcels.
- Whether the petition is maintainable given that the appropriate authority (Noida Authority) was not made a party and the petitioner has alternative remedy under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. Section 59(6)
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- illegal encroachment
- jurisdiction
- Noida Authority
- U.P. Revenue Code
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3822 of 2025
Tarachand
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Dubey, Dilip Kumar
Goswami
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rohit Yadav,
holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent authorities to ensure removal of illegal encroachment made by
encroachers/private respondents over plot no.493 area 1.0250 hectare
recorded as Pond (Pokhar); plot no.325M area 0.6960 hectare recorded as
Banjar and plot no.521 area 3000 mtr. recorded as Abadi land in the
relevant revenue records relating to Village Sultanpur, Section-128
Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.
3. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the instruction dated
10.02.2026, sent by the Tehsildar, Dadari, Gautam Buddha Nagar, has
been placed before the Court by learned Standing Counsel, which is taken
on record.
4. Perusal of the aforesaid instruction shows that the village in question
lies within the territorial limits of Noida Authority and in view of the
amendment of provision of sub-section 6 of Section 59 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, the Noida Authority has jurisdiction to take action
against the encroachers. It is further stated that the petitioner himself had
encroached upon the gram sabha land, for which action against him had
been taken by the Noida Authority.
WPIL No. 3822 of 2025
2
5. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is fully aware that the village in
question falls within the territorial limits of the Noida Authority but the
concerned authority has not been arrayed as party respondent in the
present petition. Moreover, the petitioner has remedy to approach the
appropriate authority under the relevant provision of U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 for redressal of his grievance.
6. The present petition being misconceived is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 18, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…