By the Court.—The petitioner claims himself to be an Advocate in the Civil Court at Azamgarh and has filed the instant Public Interest Litigation praying for a direction to the District Magistrate concerned to restore the status of a pond situate over plot no. 204 at village Shibli, Azamgarh.

2. The contention is that keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others reported in 2001 (6) SCC 496, the respondents are under an obligation to execute the directions contained therein and to prevent any encroachment or unauthorised occupation over ponds and lakes.

3. The petitioner contends that while he was on a morning walk on 17.8.2009 near the disputed site, he found that some construction work is going on, which according to him fell within the area of the pond and, therefore, he moved a complaint on 17.8.2009, which is annexure 3 to this writ petition. The said application alleges that the pond is entered in the revenue records as such for the past almost one century, and in support of such contention the petitioner has filed the relevant Khatauni of 1391 Fasli, which corresponds to the year 1984. A perusal of the said revenue record extract indicates that there is a small area of part of plot no. 204 entered as 204/1M, which is indicated under the heading of area submerged under water. Column 3 of the same does not indicate the period as to when the said pond came into existence.

4. The contention raised is that the pond is being encroached by unscruplous persons, and upon an enquiry on the spot, the labourers who were involved in the construction work did not disclose the name of such person who may be responsible for the same or the owner of the JCB machine, which was operating on the spot.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of the complaint the District Magistrate has not taken any action till date.

6. From a perusal of the extract of the revenue records, it appears that the area in dispute falls within the area of Tehsil Sadar and the Khatauni describes the same as a Non-Z.A. area, which means that the Abolition of Zamindari has not yet taken place in the area concerned. The law regulating such areas is contained in the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 and such other laws which have been framed time to time including the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Where the Zamindari has been abolished by way of a notification, the law regulating such area is the U.P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition Act, 1953. In both the contingencies there are provisions which provide for taking of action in the event any such encroachment is attempted.

7. The petitioner being a practicing lawyer would be reasonably expected to know the law which governs such proceedings. In our opinion, where the land is being encroached upon or not, is a matter of investigation in fact by the Competent Authority, which may require appropriate proceedings of demarcation or location of the boundary of the disputed area. To investigate and find out any such encroachment a procedure has been provided for under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, where the Competent Authority is empowered to proceed in such matters on an appropriate proceedings being instituted. Once the law provides for a particular procedure and which is, in our opinion, a complete code in itself, then taking recourse to a public interest litigation for the same may not be desirable as being ill-advised. The petitioner being a lawyer ought to have examined the procedure of law applicable and, thereafter, ought to have taken the recourse to law instead of rushing to this Court.

8. The contention on behalf of the petitioner by relying on the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra) that such encroachment deserves to be removed cannot be disputed as a proposition of law.

9. However, we do not find that the decision in Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case any where dispenses with the procedure to be followed under some statutory law, which is required to be observed