Dismissed¶7

Mohd. Atif Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2025WPIL/1068/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment; raasta; Gata No.466; 0.19 hectare; Village Ityathok; Tehsil & District Gonda; paudhshala; change of user of land; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition; PIL; WPIL No. 1068 of 2025; misconceived petition dismissed; State of U.P.; revenue records; Lucknow Bench; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; counsel admitted not reading prayer clause; no encroachment per State written instructions.

What did the court decide?

The case is not one of encroachment made by any person but of change of user of the land, as the State authorities have constructed a paudhshala on the raasta. ¶5

Mohd. Atif Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1068 of 2025

Mohd. Atif Khan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Verma, Harshit Awasthi, Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Court No. - 17

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Rai, the learned State Counsel and Sri Mohd. Talib Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.4.

¶11

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the opposite party no.4 to remove encroachments from the land bearing Gata No.466 measuring 0.19 hectare situated at Village Ityathok, Tehsil & District Gonda which is recorded as raasta in the revenue records.

¶12

While pressing for the aforesaid relief the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State authorities have constructed a paudhshala on the raasta.

¶13

From the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that it is not a case of any encroachment made by any person, rather it is a case of change of user of the land.

¶14

When the court pointed out this discrepancy in the submission and the prayer clause to the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶15

WPIL No. 1068 of 2025

¶16

¶17

asked as to whether he had read the prayer clause before starting his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that he has not read the relief clause of the writ petition before advancing his submission.

¶18

On the basis of written instructions provided to the learned State Counsel he informed the court that there is no encroachment on the land in question.

¶19

. 7. Accordingly, the petition being misconceived is dismissed

¶20

October 10, 2025

¶21

Ram.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Atif Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Atif Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Daya Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Shipra Hotels Ltd. Thru. Auth.Sign./Auth. Officer. Vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Finance Thru. Secy.

C/M Markazi Anjuman Tabligh Ahle Sunnat Thru. General Secretary Ghulam Ahmad Siddiqui and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Oru Entersprises Pvt. Ltd.Thru. Authorized Representative Mr.Vikram Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Infra. and Industrial Development Lko. and Another

Janki Prasad Verma Memorial Shikshan Sansthan Thru.Authorized Signatory/Secy. Dr.Radhey Lal Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Prin. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Veerendra Kumar Dubey and Another vs Amit Verma and 2 Others