Disposed¶15

Bal Fot v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025WPIL/998/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC Lucknow, PIL 998/2025, Bal Fot v. State of U.P. and 9 others, decided 23-09-2025 by Pankaj Bhatia J.; mandamus sought for removal of encroachment by opposite parties 6-10 from public utility road, Gata Nos. 506, 660, 661, Village Sonbarsa, Tehsil Bhinga, District Shrawasti (recorded as rasta/Hirjan abadi/khad gaddha); Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code proceedings already initiated; petition disposed with direction to conclude proceedings within 90 days per statute; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off with a direction to conclude the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code within 90 days as prescribed in the statute and in accordance with law. ¶15

Bal Fot vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed off with a direction to conclude the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code within 90 days as prescribed in the statute and in accordance with law.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of Mandamus should issue commanding Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 to remove the alleged illegal/unlawful encroachment by private Opposite Party Nos. 6 to 10 from the public utility road comprising Gata Nos. 506, 660 and 661 of Village Sonbarsa, Tehsil Bhinga, District Shrawasti. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the instructions that Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code proceedings were already initiated against the respondents including the petitioner, the court did not itself direct removal of the encroachment; it disposed of the writ petition with a direction that those statutory proceedings be concluded within 90 days as prescribed in the statute and in accordance with law.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL No. 998 of 2025, Bal Fot v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 9 others (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow, Court No. 6; Pankaj Bhatia, J.; decided September 23, 2025). The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus commanding Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 to remove alleged illegal/unlawful encroachment by private Opposite Party Nos. 6 to 10 from the public utility road comprising Gata Nos. 506, 660 and 661 of Village Sonbarsa, Tehsil Bhinga, District Shrawasti, recorded as रास्ता, हिरजन आबादी एवं खाद गड्ढा in the revenue records. Learned Standing Counsel stated on instructions that proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code had been initiated against the respondents, including the petitioner. On that basis, the single-judge bench disposed of the writ petition, directing that those statutory proceedings be concluded within the prescribed period of 90 days and in accordance with law. The court did not itself order removal of the encroachment and no precedent was relied upon.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 998 of 2025

Bal Fot

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 9 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashish Raman Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶11

1 . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶12

2 . The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶13

"I. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No. 2 to 4 for removal of illegal /unlawful encroachment of the Private Opposite Parties ie, opposite party no-6 to 10 from the Public Utility road i.e. Gata No. 506, 660 and 661 of Village - Sonbarsa, Tehsil - Bhinga, District - Shrawasti, which is recorded as रास्ता, हिरजन आबादी एवं खाद गड्ढा in the revenue records."

¶14

3 . Learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions states that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code have been initiated against the respondents including against the petitioner.

¶15

4 . In view of the said instructions, the present writ petition is disposed off with a direction to conclude the proceedings within a period of 90 days as prescribed in the statute and in accordance with law.

¶16

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶17

September 23, 2025

¶18

akverma

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bal Fot v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Fot v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 9 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

Mangla Devi Smarak Polytechnic College, Thru. Authorized Signatory, Samar Abbas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko and Others

Raghav Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Education and Another

C/M Lps Jankipuram Thru. Manager Sh. Lokesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Prabhakar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Sarvajanik Pharmacy College Thru. Manager Uday Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Krishna Kumar (in Adhar Krishn Krishnakumar) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others