IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Praveen Kumar Giri, J.
Manoj Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondents
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 2923 of 2025
Decided On : 06-10-2025
JUDGMENT :
Praveen Kumar Giri, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and Sri Girjesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent.
2. This present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed with the following prayers :-
"1. Issue, a writ order direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment of the private respondent from the public utility land Gata No.-48 area 0.177 Hec., Gata No.-51 area 0.101 Hec. and also Gata No. 53 area 0.114 Hec which is recorded as a Babali in the revenue record of Vill - Chauka, Pargana -Bhuieli, Tehsil - Chunar, Dist - Mirzapur.
2. Issue, a writ order directing in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent No.3 to decide the representation date 22.07.2024 (Annexure No.3) within a stipulated period."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pond (babali) has been encroached by some villagers and no action has been taken under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (for short 'Revenue Code') for removal of the encroachment.
4. During the course of argument, Sri Girjesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted instructions of Tahsildar, Chunar, Mirzapur informing that proceedings for removal of encroachment under Section 67 of the Revenue Code have been initiated. The instruction is taken on record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has informed the authorities including Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Village Pradhan as Chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhank Samiti (for short 'Samiti') and the Lekhpal as Secretary of the Samiti who are the custodian of the property of the State/Gram Panchayat/Gaon Sabha, but no action was taken by them. After filing of the present PIL, proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code 2006 has been initiated on 7.8.2025 and 8.9.2025 against the alleged encroachers.
6. This Court has gone through the provision of law, law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court and also the facts of this case and thereafter has drawn opinion that in case any land belonging to the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, encroached by any person, the office bearers of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti are under obligation as per Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to inform the Tahsildar concerned to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of encroachment from the public utility land and if no information or delayed information is given, action shall be taken against the Chairman i.e. Village Pradhan and Secretary i.e. Lekhpal of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti of the Village Panchayat as they are the custodian of the property.
7. The land recorded as 'pond (babali)' in the Revenue record is entrusted to the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (hereinafter referred to as 'Samiti') comprising Village Pradhan as Chairman of the Samiti and Lekhpal of the area as Secretary of the Samiti, however, they are not paying any heed to initiate proceedings for removal of the encroachment though they are the custodian of the public utility land and it appears that they are ignoring the encroachment of the land belonging to the Samiti/Gram Sabha by other persons which amount to conspiracy as well as abetment on the part of the Chairman, Secretary and other members of the Samiti.
8. The provisions of Sections 28A and 28B of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as 'the Act, 1947'), are for ‘Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti' and its functions.
Sections 28A and 28B of the Act, 1947 are being delineated below:-
“ Section 28 -A. Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti – (1) The Gram Panchayat shall also be Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and as such discharge the duties of up-keep, protection and supervision of all property belonging to or vested in or held by the Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Z

AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.