Mohd. Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a direction to the District Magistrate, Sitapur, for removal of illegal encroachment over Gaon Sabha land comprised in Gata Nos.1065, 1066 and 866, situated at Village Angrasi, Block Parsendi, Tehsil Laharpur, District Sitapur.

¶13

3. This Court, while entertaining the present petition vide order dated 09.01.2026, directed for re-registering the petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and also sought instructions from the learned State counsel.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the State has produced instructions dated 17.01.2026 sent by the Tehsildar Laharpur, District Sitapur, wherein it has been admitted that encroachment exists over Gata No.866/0.105 hectare, Gata No. 1065/0.045 hectare and Gata No. 1066/0.020 hectare, which are recorded in the revenue records as Junior High School, Chak Road and Nali (drain), respectively. It has further been stated that respondent no.6 has made unauthorised constructions over Gata Nos.1065 and 1066, and over Gata No. 866 unauthorised constructions have been made by respondent no.6 as well as by Hasim s/o Ronak Ali, Ronak Ali s/o Jamin Ali, and Kalam s/o Fakruddin, all residents of Village Angrasi.

¶15

5. It is further stated in the instructions that proceedings under

¶16

WPIL No. 25 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated against the encroachments and the cases have been registered as Case Nos.T202610640300621, T202610640300622, T202610640300623, T202610640300624, T202610640300625 and T202610640300626. From the instructions, it also transpires that respondent no. 6 has filed a case under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 seeking exchange of the land encroached by him with his own land, which has been registered as Case No. T202610640300597, and the next date fixed therein is 24.01.2026. The instructions are taken on record.

¶19

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier also proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against respondent no. 6 regarding illegal encroachment over Gata No. 1065 measuring 0.045 hectare to the extent of 0.006 hectare and Gata No. 1066 measuring 0.020 hectare to the extent of 0.002 hectare, total encroachment being 0.008 hectare, recorded in the revenue records as Chak Road and Nali (drain). The said proceedings culminated in an order dated 07.08.2024, wherein a finding was recorded that the encroachment of 0.008 hectare had been removed by the respondent himself and damages amounting to Rs.3,040/- was imposed upon respondent no.6.

¶20

7. However, in the instructions dated 17.01.2026 sent by the Tehsildar, Laharpur, District Sitapur, it is not disputed that the encroachment still exists and continues to be occupied by respondent no.6.

¶21

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 03.07.2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Sitapur, in reference to a complaint made on the IGRS Portal, wherein there is a reference to an inquiry conducted by the Chief Development Officer, Sitapur, which also records that respondent no. 6 has made illegal encroachment over Gata Nos. 1065 and 1066.

¶22

9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that proceedings for removal of illegal encroachment have already been initiated. However, in the earlier proceedings a finding was recorded that respondent no. 6 had

¶23

WPIL No. 25 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

removed the encroachment, whereas he continues to be in illegal occupation of the land in question. Consequently, fresh proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated for removal of the same encroachment.

¶26

10. Let notices be issued to respondent nos.6 to 9, returnable at an early date.

¶27

11. The District Magistrate, Sitapur shall file his personal affidavit in the present case within a period of four weeks from today, after holding an inquiry, explaining the circumstances under which the finding was recorded vide order dated 07.08.2024 in Case No. 3395 of 2023 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and if the encroachment was removed by respondent no. 6 as stated therein, then under what circumstances he has again been permitted to encroach upon the Gaon Sabha land.

¶28

12. List immediately after four weeks.

¶29

January 21, 2026 Ashish Dewal

¶30

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 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

M/s Shiva Enterprises Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri Virendra Pratap Singh vs Union of India Thru. General Manager, Northern Railways and Ors.

Smt. Ram Dulari and Another vs Estate of Late Puranmasi Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Saibaba Learning Systems Private Limited Thru.Representative Mohammad Arslan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Manjnu vs Ram Dulare and 5 Others

Uttar Pradesh Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Thru. A.G.M. (Legal and Contracts) vs Chief Medical officer, District Auraiya and another

Amar Singh vs I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Its Manager Mumbai and 3 Others