Dismissed¶5

Balram Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2026WPIL/1986/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Balram Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 others, PIL No. 1986 of 2023, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided March 13, 2026 (Arun Bhansali, CJ; Kshitij Shailendra, J.). PIL seeking removal/dispossession of encroachers from acquired court land dismissed: occupants not impleaded as parties and acquisition-challenge writ petitions pending. Connected Writ-C matters (2010-2014) listed for 02.04.2026. Keywords: PIL maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties, land acquisition, encroachment, dispossession, District Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The petition is not entertainable because none of the occupants in possession of the acquired land have been impleaded as parties. ¶4

Balram Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1986 of 2023

¶3

Balram Shukla

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and 3 others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dharmendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	. : Rajiv Singh (S.C.)

¶9

Chief Justice's Court

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶11

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the District Magistrate to take appropriate action about dispossession of occupants of the acquired land for construction of residential and non-residential buildings of the Court.

¶12

Submissions have been made that certain persons have encroached over the land in question and therefore, action be taken for their removal from the land in question.

¶13

A perusal of the record indicates that the map, which has been annexed with the report (Annexure No. 5) indicates that the plot is in possession of several persons being Chanda Devi, Vimlesh Shukla, Rajesh Shukla, Vidyadhar Shukla, Gyan Devi, Anandi Devi and Umesh Shukla.

¶14

None of the said occupants have been impleaded as party. Besides the above, on previous occasions, it has been noticed that the writ petitions challenging the acquisition itself are pending consideration before this Court.

¶15

In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶16

WPIL No. 1986 of 2023

¶17

¶18

The connected writ petitions being Writ-C No. 43101 of 2010, Writ-C No. 64508 of 2011, Writ-C No. 71289 of 2011, Writ-C No. 8458 of 2012 and Writ-C No. 9901 of 2014 be listed before appropriate Bench on 02.04.2026.

¶19

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶20

March 13, 2026

¶21

SL/Mukesh Pal

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Balram Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Rahul and 4 Others vs State of U.P., through Principal Secretary and 5 Others

Committee of Management of Madhuban Shiksha Samiti and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Naresh Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others

The Committee of Management and Another vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sudheer Kumar Tyagi vs Committee of Management of K.L. Janta Inter College and 6 Others

Committee of Management Ishwari Narayan Sanskrit Pathshala Samiti and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others