Allahabad High Court
YOGESHversusSTATE OF U.P AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as misconceived because no illegal encroachment exists on either plot.
Summary
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the removal of alleged illegal encroachments on two revenue plots, one recorded as a pond (Plot 36) and the other as Navin Parti (Plot 25). The court examined instructions from the Deputy District Magistrate and the Gram Pradhan, which indicated that Plot 36 is water‑filled and free of any encroachment, while Plot 25 had been earmarked for residential development during consolidation and currently houses villagers, including the petitioner. The respondents argued that the construction on Plot 25 is lawful and that the petition is motivated by personal grievance. Finding no evidence of illegal occupation and noting that the land use aligns with the revenue records, the court held that the petitioner’s allegations are unsubstantiated. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as misconceived.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing removal of alleged encroachments on Plot 36 and Plot 25.
- Whether the alleged encroachments on the pond and Navin Parti plots actually exist.
- Whether the construction on Plot 25 constitutes illegal encroachment given its designation as residential abadi.
- Whether the PIL is maintainable in view of the factual findings.
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- mandamus
- land encroachment
- revenue records
- pond
- Navin Parti
- consolidation proceedings
- abadi
- illegal occupation
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3941 of 2025
Yogesh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishabh Kumar Pandey, Santosh
Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Shiv Prasad Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned
counsel for the respondent no.4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing respondent no. 2, 3 to remove the illegal encroachment of arazi number 36
area about 0.3920 hec. recorded as Taal in revenue record and Arazi number 25 area
about 0.0630 hec. recorded as Navinparti which is being illegally encroached by
respondent no.5 to 10 by encroaching the taal and Navinparti of gaonsabha, as
otherwise the public at large of the locality/village will suffer irreparable loss and
injury."
3. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, learned Standing Counsel
has placed before the Court the instructions dated 28.1.2026 sent by
Deputy District Magistrate, Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, which is taken
on record.
4. Perusal of the aforesaid instructions shows that Plot no.36 area 0.3920
hectare recorded as Pond is covered by water and Bheeta and is free from
encroachment. Plot no.25 area 0.0630 hectare recorded as Navin Parti was
earmarked as Sarvajanik Abadi during the consolidation proceedings and
at present houses of the villagers are existing over it including the
WPIL No. 3941 of 2025
2
petitioner and respondent nos.5 to 7. All the occupants are agricultural
labourers and financially weak.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has also placed before the
Court the instructions sent by Gram Pradhan dated 22.1.2026, which is
taken on record. Perusal of the instructions of the Gram Pradhan shows
that plot no.36 is free from all encroachments and is at present filled with
water. On the ramp of the Pond, the family members of the petitioner
have planted Bamboo Clumps and have stored Cow Dung. Adjacent to
the Pond is plot no.25, recorded as Navin Parti, over which the petitioner
has constructed his Toilet. It is further stated that respondent nos.5 to 7
are the family members of the petitioner and the present PIL is only for
the purposes to harass them due to some personal grudge. Respondent
no.9 and 10 lives in Calcutta and their Bhumidhari land is cultivated by
respondent no.5.
6. Perusal of the aforesaid instructions sent by the revenue authority and
the Gram Pradhan shows that Plot No.36 is free from all encroachments.
Plot No.25, which was earmarked for residential purposes during the
consolidation proceedings, consists of Abadi, over which the petitioner
and the private respondents have their construction. In view of the
aforesaid, the allegations made by the petitioner in the present PIL are not
substantiated, as plot no.36, which is recorded as Pond, is free from all
encroachments and the construction existing on Plot No.25 recorded as
Navin Parti cannot be held to be encroachment, as during the
consolidation proceedings, the said land was earmarked for development
of general Abadi.
7. In view of the aforesaid, present petition being misconceived is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 15, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…