Dismissed¶15

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WPIL/186/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; PIL No. 186 of 2026; Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and others; decided 17-03-2026 by Subhash Vidyarthi, J. PIL seeking removal of encroachment over Gata Nos. 1399, 1395 and 1393, Village Dharauli, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya; SDM instructions confirmed no encroachment; petition held lacking merit and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the authorities (per written instructions of SDM, Milkipur) found the allegations of encroachment to be incorrect, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ¶15

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 186 of 2026

Arvind Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Indra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Indra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vikas Rai, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

¶12

By means of the instant petition filed in public interest, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction for removal of encroachment over public pathway bearing Gata No.1399 measuring 12.37 hectare, which is recorded as pond land, Gata No.1395 measuring 0.0630 hectare, which is recorded as Scheduled Caste abadi and land bearing Gata No.1393 measuring 0.0300 hectare situated at Village- Dharauli, Tehsil- Milkipur, Ayodhya.

¶13

On the basis of written instructions provided by SDM, Milkipur, Ayodhya, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that no encroachment exists on any of the aforesaid land.

¶14

A copy of written instructions is taken on record.

¶15

As the authorities have found the allegations to be incorrect, the petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶16

March 17, 2026 -Amit K-

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶18

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

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayansh Thru. Her Mother Smt. Rosni Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others

Mohd. Vakil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kavya Verma (Detinue) Thru. Her Father Avinash Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

C/M Shri Siddhnath Mahadev Thru. President Chandra Bhushan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mdhyamik Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Akabar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Om Mishra (Minor ) Thru. His Grandmother Vimla Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others