Allahabad High Court
HANUMANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court directs the respondent to decide the pending appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within three months, thereby disposing of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Hanuman, filed a public interest litigation challenging the non‑compliance with an order dated 29‑Nov‑2024 issued under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 concerning encroachment on Plot No. 156 in Village Dipaipur, Jaunpur. The Court directed the State’s standing counsel to obtain an explanation from the respondent Tehsildar as to why the order had not been implemented and ordered the matter to be listed fresh. Subsequent instructions showed that a restoration application had been disposed, a notice issued to encroachers to remove constructions within 30 days, and an appeal against the orders was pending before the Collector. The Court, after hearing all parties, disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide the pending appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The direction aims to ensure that the appeal is heard and the original order is enforced in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedure for enforcing an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006?
- Whether the respondent authorities have complied with the order dated 29‑Nov‑2024 and the subsequent restoration notice.
- How should the pending appeal under Section 67(5) be adjudicated and within what timeframe?
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67, 67(5)
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Revenue Law
- Encroachment
- Section 67
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Appeal
- Compliance
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3873 of 2025
Hanuman
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mashhood Abbas
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.,
Shailesh Kumar
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. On 18.12.2025, the following order was passed in the present petition:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek instruction within two weeks from the
respondent no.2 as to why order dated 29.11.2024 passed under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 in Computer Case No.T202414360107827 has not been complied
with.
3. Put up this case as fresh on 15.1.2026."
2. In compliance of the aforesaid order, instructions dated 12.01.2026,
sent by Tehsildar Shahganj, Jaunpur, has been placed before the Court,
which is taken on record.
3. A perusal of the aforesaid instructions shows that against the order
dated 29.11.2024, a restoration/recall application was filed, which has
been disposed of upholding the order dated 06.01.2026, pursuant to
which, notice dated 09.01.2026 has been issued to the encroachers to
remove their offending construction within 30 days.
4. Counsel for the respondent no. 5 states that the petitioner has filed an
appeal before the Collector Jaunpur challenging the orders dated
29.11.2024 and 06.01.2026, which is pending consideration.
WPIL No. 3873 of 2025
2
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with the
direction to the respondent no. 2, to decide the pending appeal under
Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, against the order dated
29.11.2024, passed in respect of Plot No. 156, situated in Village
Dipaipur, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur, in accordance with law, after
hearing all the concerned parties, within a period of three months, from
the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 7, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu
Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…