Allahabad High Court
VISHAL BAGLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed as an abuse of process and not maintainable.
Summary
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking an order to remove alleged illegal encroachments on public utility land (Arazi No.599 Ka) by respondents 6 to 13, relying on an earlier order dated 23‑04‑2025 issued under Section 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Nagar Panchayat indicated that it was already initiating proceedings to remove the encroachment, and the petitioner had himself obtained the 2025 order by filing an application under the same statutory provision. The Court observed that the petitioner was pursuing a private agenda, did not represent any aggrieved class, and that the PIL was therefore an abuse of process and barred by court rules. Consequently, the Court held that the PIL could not be used to enforce the Tehsildar’s order. The petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable when the petitioner has already obtained a specific order under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and is not representing a public class.
- Whether the Court can entertain a PIL to enforce an order for removal of encroachment on public utility land.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 26
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Abuse of Process
- Encroachment
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 26
- Standing
- Land Dispute
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 661 of 2026
Vishal Bagla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 12 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Tiwari, C.S.C., Sudhir
Bharti
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Sudhir
Bharti, learned counsel who has put his appearance on behalf of
respondent no.5 and Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no.4.
2. The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed with a prayer to
direct the respondent to remove the illegal encroachment made by
respondent nos. 6 to 13 over the public utility land i.e. Rasta being Arazi
No.599 Ka in pursuance of the order dated 23.04.2025 passed under
Section 26 of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006').
3. Learned counsel representing Nagar Panchayat has placed on record
the instructions that have been received by him. A perusal of the
instruction shows that the adequate proceedings are being initiated at the
Nagar Panchayat level to remove the necessary encroachment. It also
transpires from the record that the petitioner had himself filed an
application under Section 26 of the Code, 2006 which resulted in the
order dated 23.04.2025. The petitioner himself had approached the
competent court to seek the order, therefore, the present Public Interest
Litigation on behalf of the petitioner has nothing but an abuse of process
of the Court as it is clearly apparent that the petitioner is now espousing a
private agenda and he does not represent any class of persons who are
WPIL No. 661 of 2026
2
unable to come to the Court on their own.The instant Public Interest
Litigation is clearly barred by the rules of the Court and the enforcement
of the order passed by the Tehsildar, Farenda, Maharajganj cannot be
implemented by means of the present Public Interest Litigation.
4. Under the facts and circumstances, the present Public Interest
Litigation is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
March 18, 2026
gp
Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…