Om Prakash Pandey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2026WPIL/772/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL; pond beautification; MGNREGA Scheme; plot no.61; demarcation dispute plot no.69; Village Patera; Tehsil Badlapur; District Jaunpur; direction to respondent no.2; work stopped at instance of respondent no.6; Pradhan; instructions called from Standing Counsel; listed fresh 13.04.2026; interim order; Om Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Arun Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter; petition listed as fresh on 13th April, 2026 (interim order; no merits adjudicated). ¶¶14

Om Prakash Pandey and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 772 of 2026

¶3

Om Prakash Pandey And 4 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhay Mishra, Divya Yadav, Prateek Srivastava, Vipul Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No.- 55

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶7

Heard Abhay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Gupta, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

¶8

The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 to ensure the beutification work of the pond situated in plot no.61 in Village- Patera, Tehsil- Badlapur, District Jaunpur.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 25.01.2026 in presence of revenue and police team demarcation of plot no.61 was carried out and the land was handed over to the Pradhan for its excavation and beautification under the MGNREGA Scheme. The said report is annexed to the Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Subsequently, the development work of the pond was stopped at the instance of respondent no.6. The police report is annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition shows that in view of certain dispute on the spot regarding demarcation of the plot no.69, the development work being carried out was stopped.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the lackadaisical approach of the respondent nos. 2 to 5. The development work of the pond situated in plot no.61 is not being carried out despite the funds being available under the MGNREGA Scheme.

¶11