Disposed¶16

Panne Lal v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025WPIL/2961/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL Article 226 Allahabad High Court Prakash Padia J.; Panne Lal v. State of U.P.; encroachment removal; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; unexecuted order dated 15.05.2019; execution proceedings to be concluded expeditiously; no unnecessary adjournments; Kushi Nagar; Araji No. 403 village Bhaluhi; petition disposed with directions; WPIL No. 2961 of 2025; 25.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the authorities concerned to conclude the execution proceedings initiated against the private respondents most expeditiously in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties; respondents' right to seek modification/variation of the order reserved. ¶16

Panne Lal vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the authorities concerned should be directed to conclude the execution proceedings initiated against the private respondents (nos. 5 to 7) for removal of their encroachment over the public utility land of Navin Parti (Araji No. 403, area 0.1300 hectare, village Bhaluhi, Tehsil Hata, District Kushi Nagar), pursuant to the unexecuted order dated 15.05.2019 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶11

Court's answer

The present petition is disposed of, directing the authorities concerned to conclude the execution proceeding initiated against the private respondents.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The execution proceedings are to be concluded most expeditiously in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petition was disposed of without putting the respondents to notice, while expressly reserving the respondents' right to seek modification/variation of the order if aggrieved.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.) — 25.11.2025. PIL under Article 226 filed by Panne Lal seeking removal of the encroachment by respondent nos. 5 to 7 over the public utility land of Navin Parti (Araji No. 403, area 0.1300 hectare, village Bhaluhi, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Hata, District Kushi Nagar). An order dated 15.05.2019 in proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the private respondents had not been complied with; notices were issued but no decision taken. Without putting respondents to notice (their right to seek modification/variation reserved), the petition was disposed of directing the authorities concerned to conclude the execution proceeding most expeditiously in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2961 of 2025

Panne Lal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 7 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

1.Present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia with the prayer to direct the respondents-authorities to remove the illegal encroachment of respondent no.5 to 7 over the land of Navin Parti being public utility land falling in Araji No. 403 area 0.1300 hectare situated in village Bhaluhi, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Hata, District Kushi Nagar.

¶12

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the proceeding initiated against the private respondents under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, an order dated 15.05.2019 was passed, but the aforesaid order was not complied with.

¶13

On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that in the said proceeding, notices were issued to private respondents, but till date no decision has been taken.

¶14

In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose would be served by putting the respondent(s) to notice and keeping this petition pending before this Court. However, in case the respondent(s) feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the authorities concerned to conclude the execution proceeding

¶17

WPIL No. 2961 of 2025

¶18

¶19

initiated against the private respondents, most expeditiously in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶20

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶21

November 25, 2025

¶22

T.S.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Panne Lal v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panne Lal v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Vriksh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharampal vs State of U.P. and 27 Others

Smt. Nasreen vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Praveendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pradeep Kumar Sachan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Charan Singh vs Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Kanpur and Another