Rajat Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 17 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 as also Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5.

¶11

The instant petition has been preferred in public interest seeking following reliefs:

¶12

"1.To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to execute eviction order passed by Tehsildar Tehsil Bilgram District Hardoi in Case No.6240/2024, 6246/2024, 6247/2024, 6797/2024, 6245/2024, 6239/2024, 6243/2024, 6799/2024 against opposite party no.6 to 18 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in light of para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual [amendment] Regular 2016. The copy of eviction order is being annexed herewith as annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

¶13

2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to remove encroachment as per eviction order passed by Tehsildar Tehsil Bilgram District Hardoi in Case No.6240/2024, 6246/2024, 6247/2024, 6797/2024, 6245/2024, 6239/2024, 6243/2024, 6799/2024 against opposite party no.6 to 18 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."

¶14

Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel submitted a copy of the written instructions under the signatures of S.D.M, Bilgram-Hardoi dated 07.04.2026 which is taken on record.

¶15

Apparently, what is reflected from the record that though the State finding

¶16

WPIL No. 315 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

certain encroahment instituted proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, however, orders have been passed against the different respondents on different dates and the copy of the orders passed under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 has been annexed with the said written instructions.

¶19

From the bare perusal of the said order, it is indicated that they are non reasoned, non speaking and they appeared to have been passed in mechanical exercise of jurisdiction. It has also been indicated that proceedings for recall are pending.

¶20

Be that as it may, since the judicial proceedings are already pending hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage, however, suffice to note that the manner in which the State and its officials exercise their jurisdiction has already been taken note of by this Court in PIL No.194 of 2026 (Mamta vs State of U.P. and Ors) which is fixed for 01.05.2026.

¶21

The petition is dismissed.

¶22

This petition shall also be connected and placed before the Court along with PIL No.194 of 2026 (Mamta vs State of U.P. and Ors) on 1st of May, 2026.

¶23

April 13, 2026 Harshita

¶24

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶25

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

Rajat Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 17 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 17 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

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Trivedi vs Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. and 2 Others

Harpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Geeta Devi vs Mangal Prasad and 14 Others

Pradeeep Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raghupati Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 5 Others