Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 265 of 2026

¶3

Rakesh Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chi Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others	ef Secy. Revenue ...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sanjai Kumar Pandey, Suresh Kumar Mishra	Atul Tripathi,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mohan Singh
Court No.- 8

¶6

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred in the nature of PIL seeking the following reliefs:-

¶8

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to ensure the removal of illegal encroachment from public utility land Gata No.293M/0.0096 hectare relating to Khata No.00305 recorded as Chak Marg/Rasta in the revenue records situated in the village Samokhpur, Pergana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar in view of the eviction order dated 21.08.2024 amended on 28.02.2025, contained as Annexure no.2 & 4 to the writ petition.

¶9

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no.2 to look into the matter and take necessary step for removal of illegal encroachment from public utility land Gata No.293M/0.0096 hectare relating to Khata No.00305 recorded as Chak Marg/Rasta in the revenue records situated in the village Samokhpur, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and to take further action against the persons responsible.

¶10

Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition.

¶11

WPIL No. 265 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

It has been pointed out that the petitioner has not indicated his credentials appropriately. It has also been stated that complete facts have also not been indicated. It is alleged that the petitioner has selectively brought on record orders indicating that order under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 was passed on 28.02.2025, thereafter the appeal also came to be dismissed on 30.05.2025 but it has not been indicated whether the said orders still subsists or they have been set aside, stayed or varied in any proceedings.

¶14

It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has concealed the fact that against the order impugned passed against the private respondent no.5, he had filed Writ-C No.6190 of 2025 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2025. Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC-LKO:37983.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the orders of which implemention is sought in public interest was already set aside by the High Court in Writ-C No.6190 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025. Apparently, this cannot be countenanced.

¶16

The petitioner who alleges to be a public spirited person has not made the necessary spade work to ascertain the validity of the orders of which mandamus is sought apart from the fact that the petitioner is resident of East Delhi and yet the petition has been filed relating to District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶17

This Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition rather it is not even in public interest and the petitioner has not brought complete facts on record. It appears to be a misuse of PIL. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court within two weeks from today.

¶18

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶19

March 30, 2026

¶20

ank

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Singh Proprietor M/S Ravindra Metal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 3 Others

Ravindra Kumar Singh Proprietor M/S Ravindra Metal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 3 Others

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Auth. Signatory Jeetendra Bahadur Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infra. and Industrial Development Lko. and Another

Ashutosh Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Mukhtar Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Umesh Kumar Dwivedi vs Up-Lokayukt, U.P. Lko. and 10 Others