Dismissed¶18

Ramujagir v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026WPIL/374/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed for non-disclosure of pending proceedings; encroachment removal; Gata No.77Da; 0.9300 hectares; barren land; Village Padri; Pargana Paschimrat; Tehsil Bikapur; District Ayodhya; State of U.P.; Revenue Department; Tehsildar Bikapur instructions dated 27.04.2026; Coordinate Bench order dated 22.04.2026; 11 pending encroachment cases; WPIL No. 374 of 2026; Jaspreet Singh, J.; State expected to conclude and enforce encroachment proceedings diligently and expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to entertain the PIL because the petitioner did not disclose that 11 encroachment-removal cases concerning the same plot had already been initiated and were under active consideration, facts he could have investigated before filing. ¶13

Ramujagir vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 374 of 2026

Ramujagir

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others

¶7

evenue ep. o. n	ers	...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Arvind Kumar Singh	Mishra,	Mukul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 8

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶10

The instant petition has been filed in public interest seeking removal of illegal encroachments in respect of Gata No.77Da, measuring 0.9300 hectares, which is recorded as barren land in the revenue records situate at Village Padri, Pargana Paschimrat, Tehsil Bikapur, District Ayodhya.

¶11

In pursuance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.04.2026, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 27.04.2026, under the signatures of Tehsildar Bikapur, District Ayodhya, which is taken on record.

¶12

As per the said instructions, there are as many as 11 cases , which have been initiated for removal of the encroachments in respect of the plot covered by the instant petition, wherein dates have been fixed and are under active consideration.

¶13

Considering the stand of the State and the fact that the petitioner has not disclosed the aforesaid facts which he could have investigated before filing the petition, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the said petition.

¶14

Be that as it may, since it is for the State, who is obligated to ensure

¶15

WPIL No. 374 of 2026

¶16

¶17

that its properties are not encroached and since they have already taken cognizance and initiated proceedings, it is expected that the State shall take the said proceedings to its logical conclusion diligently and expeditiously as possible and also get the same enforced in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed .

¶19

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶20

April 30, 2026

¶21

Rakesh/-

¶22

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

Ramujagir v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramujagir v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Poonam Kapoor vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko and 2 Others

Shyam Ji Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Ram Kishori vs Panthwari Devi Mandir Thru. Anmol Bajpai and Others

Ram Autar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Rajitram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

M/s R.K. Constructions Thru. PoA Smt. Neelam Singh and Anr. vs Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Thru. M.D. and Anr.