By the Court.—The writ petition which has been filed in the public interest has highlighted the failure of the State to implement the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28 May 2014 in Om Prakash Varma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2014(5) ADJ 427 (DB)(LB). This judgment of the Division Bench dealt with the serious issue of encroachments on public utility lands, including among them lands which are reserved for parks, ponds and pasture lands which are being increasingly encroached upon in the absence of any remedial action by the State Government. The Division Bench adverted to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496 and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011 SC 1123. The Court formulated detailed guidelines and issued directions, having due regard to the provisions of Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Rules which have been framed under the said legislation. Comprehensive guidelines have been issued in regard to the discharge of duties by the District Collectors, to initiate proceedings under Section 122-B and where the proceedings have been concluded, to enforce the orders in accordance with the provisions of the Rules.

2. In the present case, the writ petition has highlighted the fact of non-implementation of orders or, as the case may be, failure to conclude the proceedings which have been initiated under Section 122-B. We may note, at this stage, that Section 122-B has now been succeeded by the provisions of Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code-2006 which has recently come into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The petitioners have annexed two lists at Annexures-14 and 15 to the writ petition. The first list contains a tabulated chart in relation to village Gharwaspur where orders have been passed under Section 122-B, which according to the petitioners, have not been enforced. The second list contains a tabulated statement in relation to villages Deoria and Baruiya. All three villages fall in the district of Mirzapur.

4. In our view, since the Division Bench has already laid down comprehensive guidelines and has issued directions to the State Government in Om Prakash Verma (supra), the issue which now really remains is the lack of administrative will to secure enforcement of the directions. This is a serious matter which must necessarily be taken up by the Court. We may note that the provisions of Section 67 and 136 of the U P Revenue Code, 2006 sufficiently empower the respondents to rid public utility lands from encroachments. Rule 67 (6) of the U P Revenue Code Rules, 2006 mandates that the Assistant Collector shall conclude the enquiry under Section 67 within 90 days of the issuance of the show-cause notice and in case of failure to adhere to the time frame, the authority is obliged to record reasons. Yet this Court on a daily basis is deluged by petitions alleging failure to act against encroachments or apathy in implementing orders of eviction. The obligation to preserve land meant for public utility purposes rests upon the State. Action against encroachments cannot be left to depend upon individuals instituting legal proceedings to secure enforcement of the mandate cast by Sections 67 and 136.

5. Hence, we are of the view that within a period of one month from today, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) shall take all necessary steps to circulate a copy of the judgment and order of this Court dated 28 May 2014 and this judgment to all the District Collectors. The problem shall be addressed at various levels. Firstly, where there are complaints of unauthorized encroachments, these complaints must be duly registered by the District Collectors and steps have to be initiated to deal with the encroachments on public utility lands in accordance with law. In order to ensure transparency in administration, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) will formulate guidelines th