Disposed¶17

Mo. Rijvan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2026WPIL/61/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL disposed (03.02.2026); encroachment over pond land Gata No.670, Village Pure Tulsi, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh; Section 67(1) U.P. Revenue Code encroachment proceedings; Tehsildar Kunda directed to decide Case Nos.T202602570101938 and T202602570101939 expeditiously; alleged encroachers Jubair Ahmad and Kaushlesh Pratap Singh; petitioner Mo. Rijvan; coram Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; no costs, no quantum.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tehsildar, Kunda Pratapgarh to decide Case Nos.T202602570101938 and T202602570101939 under Section 67(1) of U.P. Revenue Code expeditiously in accordance with law. ¶17

Mo. Rijvan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 61 of 2026

Mo. Rijvan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Govind Kumar Pandey : Counsel for Respondent(s) C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

1. Case called out.

¶10

Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner to press the petition and no request for adjournment or pass over of the case has been sent.

¶11

Heard Sri Vikas Rai, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Mohd. Talib Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and perused the material on record.

¶12

By means of the instant petition filed in public interest the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 for removal of encroachments made by the opposite party no.5 over the land bearing Gata No.670, situated in Village Pure Tulsi, Pariyawan, Pargana Manikpur, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh, which is recorded as pond.

¶13

On the basis of written instructions provided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunda Pratapgarh the learned Standing Counsel has informed the court that proceedings under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code have already been instituted against two persons Jubair Ahmad and Kaushlesh Pratap Singh for removal of encroachment vide Case Nos.T202602570101938 and

¶14

WPIL No. 61 of 2026

¶15

¶16

T202602570101939 which are fixed for hearing on 10.02.2026. The instructions are taken on record.

¶17

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off by issuing a direction to the Tehsildar, Kunda Pratapgarh to decide Case Nos.T202602570101938 and T202602570101939, under Section 67(1) of U.P. Revenue Code expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶18

February 3, 2026 Ram.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

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

Mo. Rijvan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mo. Rijvan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 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

Brham Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mr. X (Minor) in Case Cr. No. 413/2018 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Neelam Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Rishvi Satyarthi Thru. Her Mother Smt. Shivani Chandra vs Pankaj Kumar Satyarthi and 2 Others

Dharmendra Gautam vs State Public Service Tribunal Indira Bhawan Lko. Thru. Chairman/Registrar and 3 Others

Ravinder Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 5 Others