Dismissed¶20

Tej Bahadur v. State of U.P. and 19 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026WPIL/2479/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed as not maintainable; alternative remedy: pending proceeding under Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; alleged encroachment over pond land recorded as Jerab (Gata 266, 0.462 hectare) and Bheeta (Gata 267, 0.182 hectare), Village Sarokhanpur, Tehsil Machhlishahar, District Jaunpur; PIL held to be misuse of process of law; Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. (PIL No. 2923 of 2025, dated 09.10.2025) followed; Hinch Lal Tiwari referred in prayer clause; Tej Bahadur vs. State of U.P.; writ of mandamus; Allahabad High Court, Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

Once a proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is ongoing, the filing of the instant PIL is a misuse of the process of law and the PIL is not maintainable. ¶19

Tej Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2479 of 2025

¶3

Tej Bahadur

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 19 Others	.....Respondent
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kuldeep Tripathi, Ram Charan Lal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Shyam Dhar Gupta

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 21

¶9

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶11

In response to the order dated 02.02.2026, Sri Ajit Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel has placed the detailed instructions sent by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Machhlishahar, Jaunpur dated 17.03.2026, which is taken on record.

¶12

The instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs :

¶13

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to remove the illegal encroachment over the land in Village-Sarokhanpur, Tehsil Machhali Shahar, District-Jaunpur, bearing Gata no.266, 0.462 Hectare, land in recorded as Jerab (Pond) in the revenue records and Gata no.267, 0.182 Hectare, recorded as 'Bheeta' in the revenue records from the illegal possession of the respondent no.5 to20.

¶14

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to 4 to take appropriate action as per direction given by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari."

¶15

At the outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant PIL. He submits that in the instant matter it

¶16

WPIL No. 2479 of 2025

¶17

¶18

is alleged that there is certain illegal encroachment over Jerab (Pond), which is also recorded as 'Bheeta' and the private respondents are in illegal possession. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in Public Interest Litigation No.2923 of 2025; Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 12 others dated 09.10.2025 and submits that in the light of the said judgment, the instant PIL is not maintainable as the exhaustive procedure is enshrined under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code"). He submits that the said proceeding under the Code is also commenced.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances and the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel, we find that once the proceeding under Section 67 of the Code is on, the filing of instant proceeding is misuse of the process of law. We are also in respectful agreement with the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in Manoj Kumar Singh (Supra).

¶20

Accordingly, the instant PIL is dismissed . However, we observe that dismissal of instant PIL would not prejudice the rights of the parties in the ongoing proceeding under Section 67 of the Code.

¶21

This order has been passed with due assistance of Sri S.D. Gupta, learned counsel for Nagar Palika- respondent no.4.

¶22

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶23

March 19, 2026 Priya

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tej Bahadur v. State of U.P. and 19 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Bahadur v. State of U.P. and 19 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Bagla Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

The Nagrik Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Deepak Kumar Mangal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Aslam Ansari vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Bhagirath vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Factory Owners Association and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others