JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Rai, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents, Mr. Kalpnath Rai for respondent nos. 6 to 9 and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi for respondent no. 10, Gram Sabha.

2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, District- Ghazipur to decide the representation dated 26.11.2018 which is sent by the petitioner to District Magistrate, District- Ghazipur regarding the eviction of the respondent nos. 6 to 9 from the Arazi No. 728, 780 which is situated in Village Kathut, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District- Ghazipur which is registered as pond in revenue record which has been illegally occupied by the respondent nos. 6 to 9 which is pending before him, within stipulated period."

3. This Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel for State as well as learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha to file counter-affidavit. The State as well as the private-respondents have filed their counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed by Gaon Sabha. Petitioner has filed his rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by respective parties.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot Nos. 728 and 780 situated in Village Kathut, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District- Ghazipur are recorded as pond in the revenue record which is in illegal occupation of respondent nos. 6 to 9. He further submitted that petitioner filed representation dated 26.11.2018 for the removal of the encroachment over the pond in question which has not been considered by the authorities in accordance with law. He further submitted that one civil suit for partition has been filed by private respondents which is pending but the plot in question is not disputed in civil suit for partition filed by private respondents. He submitted that necessary order be passed for the removal of the encroachment over the Arazi Nos. 728 and 780.

5. Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that proceeding under Section 122 -B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has been initiated which is pending. He further submitted that proceeding under Section 122 -B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, an order was passed that till the conclusion of the proceeding by Civil Court, the proceeding under Section 122 -B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act shall be kept in abeyance. They submitted that unless the proceeding under Section 122 -B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is concluded the order for removal of encroachment cannot be passed. They submitted that instant PIL is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Kalp Nath Rai, Counsel for private respondent nos. 6 to 9 submitted that earlier Writ C No. 10627 of 2014 filed by son of instant petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 19.2.2014 with a direction to the District Magistrate to decide petitioner's application within three months accordingly petitioner's application was disposed of vide order dated 4.4.2014 hence instant PIL is misconceived and liable to be rejected. He further submitted that civil suit for partition being suit No. 315 of 1999 is pending before Civil Court and interim order to maintain status quo is continuing in respect to plot in dispute, as such, unless civil suit No. 315 of 1999 is decided, proceeding for ejectment and damages under Section 122 -B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act cannot be heard and disposed of. He further submitted that resp