JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Marti Tripathi, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present public interest litigation (in short "PIL") with the following prayers:

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to release the encroachment of the respondent Nos. 6 to 16 from the land of Gaon Sabha situated over khasra No. 523/.2830 hectare as ponds, khasra No. 146/0.0320 hectare as kahlihan, khasra No. 544/0.0400 hectare as Panchayat Bhawan, khasra No. 542/0.0810 hectare as khasra Nos. 543/0.0570, 638/0.0940, 5410.2390 hectare as banjar and khasra No. 696/0.0080 hectare as chakmarg, village Khairatiya Shitalapur, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the above lands and take the necessary action against the respondent Nos. 6 to 16 for making illegal encroachment over the above lands of gaon sabha situated over the above khasra nos village Khairatiya Shitalapur, Pargana Sichuwa Jobna, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar."

3. In the affidavit of compliance, it is stated that one Ram Pyare Kushwaha along with four others filed Writ C. No. 2089 of 2019 (Ram Pyare Kushwaha and others v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court with regard to plot No. 523. In the said writ petition, an order of status quo was passed by this Court on 14.3.2019. In this view of the matter, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that no further action was taken against the encroachers.

4. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there are several other gatas which were wholly illegally encroached by the private respondents and necessary directions be issued in the present public interest litigation.

5. At this, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy to approach the Assistant Collector as provided under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

6. In view of the statutory alternative remedy available to petitioner, no purpose would serve to keep the PIL pending. The petitioner is permitted to submit a representation before the Assistant Collector concerned bringing the relevant facts regarding encroachment over the aforesaid remaining plots. If no proceedings under section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 have already been registered in relation to encroachment over the said remaining plots, on receiving the aforesaid representation, the Assistant Collector shall inquire into the allegations made by the petitioner after following the procedure prescribed under section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date when the aforesaid representation is filed by the petitioner. In case the allegations of the petitioner are found to be true the Assistant Collector shall ensure that the encroachments over the land in question be removed within a period of one month thereafter unless the order of Assistant Collector is stayed by any Superior Authority or Court in any appeal or revision filed against the order of Assistant Collector. It is also directed that, if the petitioner or any other member of the Gaon Sabha files an application in the case registered before the Assistant Collector, to be heard in opposition to the noticee in the said cases, the Assistant Collector shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the said persons to oppose the defence, if any, taken by the noticee.

7. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the claim as raised by the petitioner in the present PIL.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the public interest litigation is disposed of.