Ahsan Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 996 of 2026

¶3

Ahsan Ali

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Deepak Kumar Srivastava, Deepanshi Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh
Court No.- 55

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Deepanshi Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh for the respondent no. 4.

¶8

On 21.04.2026, the following order was passed in the present petition:-

¶9

"1. Heard Ms. Deepanshi Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶10

The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to restrain the Gram Pradhan of the respondent of 4 from constructing road over Plot No. 615, recorded as Banjar in the relevant revenue records, relating to Village Dhaneli, District Bareilly.

¶11

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction of road by the Gram Pradhan over Banjar land is only with the purpose of misappropriating of the gaon sabha fund and the said road is not beneficial to any villager. It has been further submitted that repeated representations have been made by the villagers against the construction of the said road, as it is not beneficial for them, and that the said fund should be utilized for other development works.

¶12

The learned Standing Counsel and the counsel for the respondent no. 4 pray for and are granted two weeks time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶13

WPIL No. 996 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

List this matter again as fresh on 7.5.2026."

¶16

In compliance of the aforesaid order, instructions dated 04.05.2026, sent by Deputy District Magistrate, Meerganj, Bareilly, has been placed before the Court, which is taken on record.

¶17

A perusal of the aforesaid instructions shows that Plot No. 615, recorded as Banjar, there exist a Mazar on the north-east side for the last 40 years. The land of Plot No. 615 is being used by the villagers to go to Mazar. The necessity of construction of CC Road arose, regarding which the Land Management Committee passed the resolution dated 17.06.2025, which has been duly approved, pursuant to which, the road is being constructed.

¶18

The petitioner is the brother of the co-bhumidhar of Plot No. 617, area 0.3100 hectare. The owners of the aforesaid plot no. 617 had encroached upon land of plot no. 615 and when proceeding for eviction was carried out all encroachments were removed. The brother of the petitioner Hasnain Ali had filed Writ-C No. 11079 of 2026 with a prayer that the respondents are trying to construct road upon his bhumidhari plot. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner of the said writ petition to move an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of his plot no. 617. The construction of the said road is on Plot no. 615.

¶19

It has been further submitted that the present writ petition has been filed in the form of a public interest litigation to stall construction of the pathway on the banjar plot no. 615, so that the encroachment made by the brother of the petitioner over plot no. 617 and other co-bhumidhars is not disturbed.

¶20

In view of the instructions submitted by the Deputy District Magistrate, Meerganj, Bareilly, it is evident that the allegation of misappropriation of gaon sabha fund is not substantiated, as the construction of road is duly approved by the Gaon Sabha.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the brother of the petitioner is co-bhumidhar of adjacent plot no. 617, and the

¶22

WPIL No. 996 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

encroachment made by him had been removed earlier.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the present writ petition has been filed more in private interest, than the interest of the villagers. The present petition being misconceived is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶26

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶27

May 7, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ahsan Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahsan Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shivbabu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Amir Suhel vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Roop Singh Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

Ramvriksha Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Daya Shanker Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others