Disposed¶11

Ajeet Kumar Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2026WPIL/65/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL No. 65 of 2026, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, decided February 6, 2026, by Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; petition disposed with direction; encroachment on gaon sabha land Gata No.542, Gaon Sabha Salpur Semra, Tehsil Sadar, District Gonda, recorded as chakmarg; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code; Case Nos.T202208300409720 and T202208300409719 pending; expeditious decision and removal of encroachment directed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the authority concerned to decide Case Nos.T202208300409720 and T202208300409719 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code expeditiously in accordance with law, and thereafter to take all necessary steps for removal of encroachments with utmost expedition. ¶11

Ajeet Kumar Yadav and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 65 of 2026

¶3

Ajeet Kumar Yadav And 5 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s) Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Others	Revenue Lko. And 8 ..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Suresh Kumar Pandey, Pandey	Deepak Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Court No. - 17

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, 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.

¶9

By means of the instant petition filed in public interest the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction for removal of encroachment made on gaon sabha land bearing Gata No.542, situated in Gaon Sabha Salpur Semra, Tehsil Sadar, District Gonda, which is recorded as chakmarg.

¶10

On the basis of written instructions provided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Gonda the learned Standing Counsel has informed the court that proceedings (Case Nos.T202208300409720 and T202208300409719), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code have already been instituted for removal of encroachment over the land in question.

¶11

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off by issuing a direction to the authority concerned to decide Case Nos.T202208300409720 and T202208300409719, under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code expeditiously in accordance with law and thereafter proceed to take all necessary steps for removal of encroachments with utmost expedition.

¶12

February 6, 2026

¶13

Ram.

¶14

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶15

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

Ajeet Kumar Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kumar Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 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

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory,S.M.Arya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure Industrial Development Govt. Lko. and Another

Venkateshwara Institute of Medical Sciences Thru.Manager vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Sarita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Sarvesh Kumar vs Tribhuwan Yadav and 3 Others

Ram Niwaj Tiwari vs Ram Milan Tiwari and 5 Others

Shabnam vs Ayaj Ahmad