Allahabad High Court

SANJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS

Decided: 14 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The Court held that the pond is free from encroachments and the petitioner must pursue demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, leading to the disposal of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation alleging that Plot No. 735, recorded as a Johad (pond) in revenue records, had been illegally encroached upon by respondents 6 to 9. The respondents contended that no encroachment existed and that the petition was based on incorrect facts. The Court examined the instruction dated 16‑12‑2025 from the Tehsildar and found that the pond was presently free of encroachments, but noted the petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the measurement and the absence of a spot‑inspection map. The Court directed the petitioner to seek a proper demarcation of the plot under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the appropriate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief.

Issues considered

Whether the pond in Plot No. 735 is subject to illegal encroachment by the respondents.
Whether the petitioner can obtain relief through a writ petition or must approach the revenue authority under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24

Subjects

public interest litigation
encroachment
land demarcation
revenue law
Section 24
U.P. Revenue Code
pond
plot

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3929 of 2025

Sanjay Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Pundir, Rekha Pundir
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani, Raj
Kumar Singh

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

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4; Sri K.K. Mani, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 9.

2. On the basis of the instructions dated 16.12.2026, sent by Tehsildar
Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, the following order was passed by this
Court on 22.01.2026:-

"1.Instruction dated 16.12.2025 sent by Tehsildar, Budhana, District-Muzaffar Nagar
is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned
counsel for Gram Sabha.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot in question is recorded as
'Johar' in the revenue record and private respondent is in illegal possession over the
same.

4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel for the state-respondents
submitted that instant public interest litigation has not been filed with correct facts as
such the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that there is no illegal
encroachment over the plot in question, as such prayer made in in the instant public
interest litigation cannot be allowed.
WPIL No. 3929 of 2025
2

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is disputing the fact mentioned in the instruction.

6. Mr. Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel is directed to serve the copy
of the instruction to learned cousnel for the petitioner during course of the day.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file reply to the facts mentioned in the
instruction.

8. Put up this matter as fresh on 12.2.2026."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, a counter affidavit has
been filed by the petitioner against the instructions dated 16.12.2025,
disputing the correctness of the averments made in it, reiterating the fact
that the pond existing in Plot No. 735 has been encroached by the
respondent nos. 6 to 9. It has been further contended that the Plot No. 735
recorded as Johad has not been measured in accordance with law by
adopting the procedure provided under the rules.

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and perusal of instructions shows that at present the pond
existing in Plot No. 735 is free from all encroachments, however, the
petitioner is not satisfied with the measurement conducted, as the
instructions does not enclose the spot inspection map prepared by the
revenue team. As the petitioner is not satisfied with the demarcation
proceedings, he is at liberty to move an appropriate application under
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to get the plot no. 735
demarcated in accordance with law. If any such application is filed by the
petitioner before the appropriate authority, it is desirable that it shall be
considered and decided, in accordance with law.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 15, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…