Disposed¶12

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chief Secy. Lko. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2026WPIL/214/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC (Lucknow Bench), PIL No. 214 of 2026, Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy. & 9 others (decided 10-03-2026; Rajan Roy & Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.): writ petition for removal of encroachment disposed of on withdrawal; alleged encroachers not impleaded; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 proceedings underway/proposed; liberty to file fresh petition if cause arises. Counsel: Manoj Kumar Mishra (petitioner); Kumar Sambhav, ACSC (State); Rakesh Chaudhary, Sr. Adv., with Ayush Chaudhary (opposite party no. 10).

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition if there is a cause. ¶12

Ravi Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chief Secy. Lko. and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 214 of 2026

Ravi Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. And 9 Others	Chief Secy	. Lko.	.....	Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Manoj Verma, Shubha	Kumar Hari m Kumar	Mishra, Krishn Verma	Ajay Kumar a Chaubey,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.,	Ayush C	haudhary

¶7

Court No. - 1

¶8

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶9

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kumar Sambhav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Rakesh Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ayush Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 10.

¶10

2. We find that the petitioner seeks removal of encroachment, however, he has not impleaded the alleged encroachers, especially as, according to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, in respect of the some land proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are underway while in respect of others appropriate proceedings are proposed to be undertaken for removal of encroachment.

¶11

3. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh if there is a cause.

¶12

4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶14

March 10, 2026

¶15

R.K.P.

¶16

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

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chief Secy. Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chief Secy. Lko. 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

Similar cases

Mohd.Suyeb vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Atal Bihari Vajpayee Medical University Thru. Registrar vs Baba Edu. Society Lko Thru. Secy. Rajesh Kumar Vajpayee and Another

Asgar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Vinod Pratap Kunwar Alias Vinod Kumar Kunwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Anubhag Lko. and 3 Others

Vikas Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban and Development Lko. and 2 Others

Deepak Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others