Dismissed¶19

Yogesh v. State of U.P and 9 Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2026WPIL/3941/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Yogesh v. State of U.P and 9 others, Allahabad High Court, PIL No. 3941 of 2025, decided 15 May 2026 by Arun Kumar, J. Keywords: mandamus, removal of encroachment, gaon sabha land, taal/pond plot no. 36, Navin Parti plot no. 25, Sarvajanik Abadi, consolidation proceedings, Deputy District Magistrate Jakhaniya, Gram Pradhan instructions, District Ghazipur, allegations unsubstantiated, PIL dismissed as misconceived. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The allegations in the PIL are not substantiated: plot no. 36, recorded as Pond (Taal), is free from all encroachments. ¶18

Yogesh Vs State of U.P and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3941 of 2025

¶3

Yogesh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P And 9 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rishabh Kumar Kumar Upadhyay	Pandey, Santosh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bhupendra Kumar	Tripathi, C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 55

¶8

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Shiv Prasad Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

¶11

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondent no. 2, 3 to remove the illegal encroachment of arazi number 36 area about 0.3920 hec. recorded as Taal in revenue record and Arazi number 25 area about 0.0630 hec. recorded as Navinparti which is being illegally encroached by respondent no.5 to 10 by encroaching the taal and Navinparti of gaonsabha, as otherwise the public at large of the locality/village will suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶12

In pursuance of the direction of this Court, learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court the instructions dated 28.1.2026 sent by Deputy District Magistrate, Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, which is taken on record.

¶13

Perusal of the aforesaid instructions shows that Plot no.36 area 0.3920 hectare recorded as Pond is covered by water and Bheeta and is free from encroachment. Plot no.25 area 0.0630 hectare recorded as Navin Parti was earmarked as Sarvajanik Abadi during the consolidation proceedings and at present houses of the villagers are existing over it including the

¶14

WPIL No. 3941 of 2025

¶15

¶16

petitioner and respondent nos.5 to 7. All the occupants are agricultural labourers and financially weak.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has also placed before the Court the instructions sent by Gram Pradhan dated 22.1.2026, which is taken on record. Perusal of the instructions of the Gram Pradhan shows that plot no.36 is free from all encroachments and is at present filled with water. On the ramp of the Pond, the family members of the petitioner have planted Bamboo Clumps and have stored Cow Dung. Adjacent to the Pond is plot no.25, recorded as Navin Parti, over which the petitioner has constructed his Toilet. It is further stated that respondent nos.5 to 7 are the family members of the petitioner and the present PIL is only for the purposes to harass them due to some personal grudge. Respondent no.9 and 10 lives in Calcutta and their Bhumidhari land is cultivated by respondent no.5.

¶18

Perusal of the aforesaid instructions sent by the revenue authority and the Gram Pradhan shows that Plot No.36 is free from all encroachments. Plot No.25, which was earmarked for residential purposes during the consolidation proceedings, consists of Abadi, over which the petitioner and the private respondents have their construction. In view of the aforesaid, the allegations made by the petitioner in the present PIL are not substantiated, as plot no.36, which is recorded as Pond, is free from all encroachments and the construction existing on Plot No.25 recorded as Navin Parti cannot be held to be encroachment, as during the consolidation proceedings, the said land was earmarked for development of general Abadi.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, present petition being misconceived is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

May 15, 2026

Anil

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogesh v. State of U.P and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh v. State of U.P and 9 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

Amrjit vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Arvind Kumar Singh @ Behosh Jaunpuri vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Rajesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sughar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Baul Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shailendra Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 7 Others