Guljari Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Heard Sri Ram Sewak, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 and Sri Amit Kumar Sonkar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

¶12

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is a resident of Mohalla 2/8/101, Naya Purwa, Tehsil Sadar, P.S. Cantt, District Ayodhya. There is a road/pathway over the sahan land in front of the petitioner's house, which is 15 feet wide. According to the petitioner, this constitutes an encroachment on his sahan land. Accordingly, in the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to take appropriate legal action against those responsible for the alleged illegal construction.

¶13

It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on a previous occasion, he had approached this Court by filing Public Interest Litigation No. 1154 of 2025. The said PIL was disposed of by order dated 15.11.2025 after recording the statement made on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel to the effect that there is no encroachment over the said land. It was stated that the land over which the khadanja marg and nala are situated is non-ZA land and that such khadanja marg and nala are not existing in the revenue map. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court was of the view that the petitioner would have to seek an appropriate remedy under Section 152 of B.N.S.S., 2023, if permissible.

¶14

It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has moved an appropriate application under Section 152 of B.N.S.S., 2023, which is pending consideration and has simultaneously filed

¶15

WRIC No. 3785 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

the instant petition seeking the same relief which was the subject matter of the previous PIL No. 1154 of 2025.

¶18

When a pointed query was made to the counsel for the petitioner to indicate his right over the constructed house as well as the sahan land, no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming nor have any documents been filed to indicate that the petitioner has any right, interest or title over the disputed land. The entire focus of the argument is on the responsibility of the respondents, questioning the manner in which they constructed the said road.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that on the previous occasion when the writ petition was preferred as a Public Interest Litigation, this Court found that there was no encroachment and further directed the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy under Section 152 of B.N.S.S. Once the Division Bench of this Court has recorded such a finding, accepting the version of the learned Standing Counsel, we find no reason to take a contrary view.

¶20

Apart from the above, we note that the petitioner has already moved an application under Section 152 of B.N.S.S., 2023, and will have to await the outcome of the said proceedings. Further, the dispute appears to be private in nature and the petitioner has full opportunity to contest the claim and seek a declaration as well as permanent injunction in accordance with law before a court of competent jurisdiction.

¶21

In light of the aforesaid, no good ground for interference is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶22

April 24, 2026 Ashish Dewal

¶23

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guljari Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guljari Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 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

Similar cases

Canara Bank Arm Branch C.O. Gomti Nagar Lucknow Thru. Authorized Officer Sri Rishikesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and 11 Others

Leelawati Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Gurmeet Kaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries Lko. and 5 Others

Maya Devi vs Union of India, Thru. Drm Izzat Nagar Dist. Bareli U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Gond @ Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kamla @ Smt. Kamla Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others