Smt.Banarasi Devi @ Banarasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11034 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶1We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gram Sabha.

¶2This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the Mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 to insure the compliance of the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, District-Sultanpur in the Case No. 3662/ 2025, Computerized Case No. D202504680003662 (Smt. Banarasi Devi versus Village Panchayat and others), and restrain the opposite parties No. 7, 8 and 9 not to make any construction over the land in dispute i.e. Gata No. 107 area

0.3260 hec. and Gata No. 132 area 0.1870 hec. of the Village-Banauta, Tahsil-Kadipur, District-Sultanpur contained as annexure No. 6 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the Mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 to make an enquiry against the opposite parties No. 6 to 9 and take appropriate action against them regarding illegal construction and encroachment on the land in dispute i.e. Gata Nos. 107 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Singh Raj, Ravi Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Smt.Banarasi Devi @ Banarasi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) and 132, in accordance with law.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the Mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 2, 3 & 4 to remove the illegal possession of the opposite parties No. 7, 8 and 9 from the Gata No. 132 area 0.1870 hec. of the Village-Banauta, Tahsil-Kadipur, District-Sultanpur which is recorded as Naveen Parti in the revenue record."

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the orders passed by this Court on 01.12.2025 and 11.12.2025.

¶4Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents has produced before this Court copy of instructions sent by the Tehsildar, Kadipur, Sultanpur dated 15.12.2025, which are kept on record.

¶5We have gone through the report enclosed to the said instructions from which it is evident that an on the spot inspection was carried out of the property in question and coloured photographs have also been enclosed to the said report. No construction was being carried out on the date of such on the spot inspection. It has also been stated in the instructions that Section 67 proceedings have been initiated against the encroachers of Gram Sabha land.

¶6In case, the petitioner is still aggrieved the petitioner may approach the Chief Revenue Officer as the allegation in the writ petition is of non-compliance of the order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer dated

10.07.2025. It is expected that Section 67 proceedings shall be considered and decided expeditiously say within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶7Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. December 18, 2025 Darpan Sharma WRIC No. 11034 of 2025 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench