Allahabad High Court
WPIL/2342/2026 of SIDDHARTH RAI Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 7 OTHERS on 29 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2342 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Prem Bahadur Singh holding brief of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2342 of 2026
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Prem Bahadur Singh holding brief of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to ensure removal of illegal encroachment made by encroachers/private respondents over plot nos. 37 & 39 recorded as Naveen Parti in the relevant revenue records relating to Village Hathini Tehsil Sadar, District Mau.
3. Today when the case was taken up, the instruction dated 26.9.2026, sent by the Tehsildar Sadar, District Mau, has been placed before the Court by learned Standing Counsel, which is taken on record.
4. Perusal of the aforesaid instruction shows that Plot Nos. 37 & 39, recorded as Navin Parti in the revenue records have been earmarked for Harijan Abadi in C.H. Form 41 & 45 prepared during consolidation proceedings. At present various houses have been constructed over Plot Nos. 37 & 39 for the last 30 years in which people are residing. All the occupants of the houses belong to schedule caste category and there is no other house of any villager over the aforesaid plots.
5. In view of the aforesaid, as Plot Nos. 37 & 39 were earmarked for Harijan Abadi during consolidation proceedings and houses of persons belonging to scheduled caste category are existing over it, it cannot be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pavan Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Siddharth Rai .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 7 Others .....Respondent(s)
held to be encroachment by respondent nos. 4 to 8, as alleged in the present PIL.
6. In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. However, dismissal of the present petition would not be an impediment in filing a fresh petition, if the petitioner finds that persons other than belonging to scheduled caste category have encroached upon the plots in question. September 30, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WPIL No. 2342 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad