Gram Sabha v. Rangi Lal), whereby eviction from Gram Sabha land was directed

litigation cost. The said order was never challenged in appeal or revision and thus attained finality. During enforcement proceedings of said order, an objection was raised by Mahesh Kumar Pathak S/o Rangi Lal/respondent number 7, on the ground that respondent Rangi Lal had died. Accordingly, the Tehsildar (Judicial) passed a final order on

04.09.2024 clarifying that though proceedings against a deceased respondent is abated, the earlier order dated 23.09.2023, which has already been computed, requires strict implementation to remove the encroachment. However, even after passing of these orders, the revenue authorities, namely, the Tehsildar and the Lekhpal, have not taken effective steps for removal of encroachment and eviction of trespasser as well as the recovery of damages and costs. Respondent no.5 and his family have taken forceful possession on said gaon sabha/ public utility land in collusion with some government officials. The petitioner had filed applications before the District Magistrate, Bahraich, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and the Tehsildar concerned, seeking removal of the 3 WPIL No. 1163 of 2025 encroachment and implementation of the judicial order passed by the Tehsildar. The non-implementation of statutory/ judicial orders by authorities amounts to their jurisdictional error and cause for the issuance of writ of mandamus to remind them to perform their duties.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted the instructions received from the Tehsildar, Nanpara, Bahraich, wherein it is stated that the said land Plot No.246/0.063 hectare is recorded in the column of Khalihan in revenue records. The eviction proceedings are being carried out under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against illegal occupant, Mahesh Kumar Pathak S/o Rangi Lal, in which the next date is fixed as 15.12.2025. The further proceedings will be taken after passing of ejectment order.

6. From perusal of order dated 23.09.2023, it appears that the ejectment order against the trespasser, Rangi Lal, has already been passed on

23.09.2023 and it appears that respondent no.7, who is his son, is continuing to illegally occupy the said land.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2933 of 2025 (Munni Lal @ Hari Sharan versus State of U.P. and 9 others), wherein a Single Bench considered the menace of the issue of illegal encroachment in public utility land in villages which belongs to Gram Panchayat/ Gram Sabha. The office bearers of Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti under obligation as per Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to inform the Tehsildar concerned to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of encroachment from the public utility land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court have directed that if no information or delayed information is given by the Village Pradhan and the Secretary of Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti i.e. Lekhpal, action shall be taken against them.

8. This Court issued the following directions in said order dated

06.10.2025, for removal of encroachment on public utility land in the villages, which are quoted here-in-under:- "34. The District Magistrate of all Districts and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of all Tehsils of State of Uttar Pradesh are directed to take action, initiating departmental 4 WPIL No. 1163 of 2025 proceedings treating as 'misconduct' under Rule 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 read with Section 233 Rule (ix) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust under Section 316 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 with abetement and conspiracy against the area Lekhpal being Secretary of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, is custodian of the Gram Panchayat property, if he is not giving information under Rule 66 of the Rules 2016 in respect of any encroachment on the land by revenue R.C. Form No. 19 to the concerned Tehsildar or Tehsildar (Judicial) within 60 days from the date of this order. Furthermore, all the District Magistrates and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of State of Uttar Pradesh are also directed to take action, initiating proceedings for removal of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat under section 95(1)(g)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, treating as misconduct, not performing his duty as per rule 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 read with section 233 Rule (ix) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust under section 316 of BNS, 2023 with abetment and conspiracy as the village pradhan, being chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti of the Gram Panchayat, is custodian of the property of the Gram Panchayat entrusted to him under law, if he is not informing under Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 in respect of encroachment of the land by the Revenue R.C. Form No. 19 to the concerned Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Judicial) within sixty days from the date of this order. This Court also directs that if a Tehsildar or Tehsildar (Judicial) does not decide the encroachment proceedings provided under section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 67(6) within 90 days from the date of show cause notice and no sufficient reasons recorded for delay, treating it misconduct under rule 195 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 read with section 233 Rule (xvii) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for initiating departmental proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 against him for punishment.

35. The above exercises i.e. removal of encroachment and taking action against the erring officers should be carried out within Ninety days, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons including who have also encroached the public land entrusted to the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti of the Gram Panchayat or any other authority. The entire process shall be done as per RC Form Nos.19, 20, 21 provided under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for removal of 5 WPIL No. 1163 of 2025 encroachment. The public utility land shall be restored on its original nature so that it may be used for the purpose as it is created for in the revenue record.

36. The police authorities are directed to extend all necessary cooperation and assistance to the revenue authorities in the exercise of removal of encroachment from the public utility land. They shall also ensure that the process of removal of encroachment is carried out peacefully and without any hindrance, maintaining public order at all times.

37. The concerned respondent authorities shall communicate the action taken by them to the informant and the informant shall be provided opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceedings. If any encroachment is still on State land/public utility land in the State of Uttar Pradesh and information is yet not given by Chairman i.e. Pradhan and Secretary i.e. Lekhpal to Tehsildar under Rule 66 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 or Inspector or any other official of the department/authority to the competent authority for removal of encroachment, civil contempt proceedings may be initiated by any person, in the High Court for non compliance of this order of the High Court.

38. The Additional Chief Secretaries/Principal Secretaries, of the concerned departments of Government of Uttar Pradesh are directed to examine the matter in view of the continuing encroachments upon public land or land reserved for public utility purposes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is a matter of concern that such encroachments still persist despite availability of several officers entrusted with the duty of protecting and supervising the public utility land such as ponds, roads, parks, play ground, water covering areas etc. It is imperative that effective measures be taken to ensure the preservation, protection, and restoration of State land and public utility land, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and the Rules, 2016 framed thereunder and also any other provisions of special Acts or Rules.

39. This Court is also directing that if any land belonging to the State Government or any Local bodies/authorities, is illegally occupied or encroached by any person, the Inspector of the concerned department/authority or any other official is duty bound to inform the concerned authority of the department about the encroachment, to initiate proceedings for removal of the encroachment and also restore the property in original form. In case, the concerned inspector/official does not inform about any kind of 6 WPIL No. 1163 of 2025 encroachment on the said land and information comes otherwise, departmental proceedings for misconduct and criminal proceeding of criminal breach of trust treating also as abettor as well as conspirator, shall be initiated against him a s well as other erring official as he/they are the custodian of the properties entrusted to them as government authorities.

40. This Court further directs that if any land, recorded in the revenue record of a tehsil or record of a local body, in the name of authority or for public use; if the land is encroached by any person, the encroachment shall be removed by the tehsildar or any other authority of the local bodies within the time frame as prescribed under the law. Furthermore, if any land of any authority is encroached by any person and its information comes in the knowledge of the higher authority otherwise, than by the concerned Inspector or other official under obligation to inform and if the higher authority is not taking action against the Inspector or other official, the role of higher authority may be assumed as abettor or conspirator in respect of the encroached property as the officers of the authority are custodian of the property."

9. In view of above and on perusal of instructions produced by learned Standing Counsel, it appears that, in spite of the eviction order passed earlier in respect of Rangi Lal, the father of the respondent no.7, after his death, no effective proceedings are taken by Tehsildar and other officials for ejectment of present trespasser, who is said to be respondent no.7, son of Rangi Lal. Let a copy of this order be sent to Magistrate, Bahraich, to issue necessary directions to Tehsildar and other officials to expedite the matter of ejectment of the trespasser, which has been alleged in this matter and get the land evicted from the possession of the trespasser at the earliest.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. November 19, 2025 Mohd. Sharif (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

litigation cost. The said order was never challenged in appeal or revision and thus attained finality. During enforcement proceedings of said order, an objection was raised by Mahesh Kumar Pathak S/o Rangi Lal/respondent number 7, on the ground that respondent Rangi Lal had died. Accordingly, the Tehsildar (Judicial) passed a final order on

04.09.2024 clarifying that though proceedings against a deceased respondent is abated, the earlier order dated 23.09.2023, which has already been computed, requires strict implementation to remove the encroachment. However, even after passing of these orders, the revenue authorities, namely, the Tehsildar and the Lekhpal, have not taken effective steps for removal of encroachment and eviction of trespasser as well as the recovery of damages and costs. Respondent no.5 and his family have taken forceful possession on said gaon sabha/ public utility land in collusion with some government officials. The petitioner had filed applications before the District Magistrate, Bahraich, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and the Tehsildar concerned, seeking removal of the 3 WPIL No. 1163 of 2025 encroachment and implementation of the judicial order passed by the Tehsildar. The non-implementation of statutory/ judicial orders by authorities amounts to their jurisdictional error and cause for the issuance of writ of mandamus to remind them to perform their duties.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted the instructions received from the Tehsildar, Nanpara, Bahraich, wherein it is stated that the said land Plot No.246/0.063 hectare is recorded in the column of Khalihan in revenue records. The eviction proceedings are being carried out under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against illegal occupant, Mahesh Kumar Pathak S/o Rangi Lal, in which the next date is fixed as 15.12.2025. The further proceedings will be taken after passing of ejectment order.

6. From perusal of order dated 23.09.2023, it appears that the ejectment order against the trespasser, Rangi Lal, has already been passed on

23.09.2023 and it appears that respondent no.7, who is his son, is continuing to illegally occupy the said land.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2933 of 2025 (Munni Lal @ Hari Sharan versus State of U.P. and 9 others), wherein a Single Bench considered the menace of the issue of illegal encroachment in public utility land in villages which belongs to Gram Panchayat/ Gram Sabha. The office bearers of Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti under obligation as per Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to inform the Tehsildar concerned to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of encroachment from the public utility land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court have directed that if no information or delayed information is given by the Village Pradhan and the Secretary of Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti i.e. Lekhpal, action shall be taken against them.

8. This Court issued the following directions in said order dated

06.10.2025, for removal of encroachment on public utility land in the villages, which are quoted here-in-under:- "34. The District Magistrate of all Districts and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of all Tehsils of State of Uttar Pradesh are directed to take action, initiating departmental 4 WPIL No. 1163 of 2025 proceedings treating as 'misconduct' under Rule 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 read with Section 233 Rule (ix) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust under Section 316 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 with abetement and conspiracy against the area Lekhpal being Secretary of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, is custodian of the Gram Panchayat property, if he is not giving information under Rule 66 of the Rules 2016 in respect of any encroachment on the land by revenue R.C. Form No. 19 to the concerned Tehsildar or Tehsildar (Judicial) within 60 days from the date of this order. Furthermore, all the District Magistrates and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of State of Uttar Pradesh are also directed to take action, initiating proceedings for removal of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat under section 95(1)(g)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, treating as misconduct, not performing his duty as per rule 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 read with section 233 Rule (ix) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust under section 316 of BNS, 2023 with abetment and conspiracy as the village pradhan, being chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti of the Gram Panchayat, is custodian of the property of the Gram Panchayat entrusted to him under law, if he is not informing under Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 in respect of encroachment of the land by the Revenue R.C. Form No. 19 to the concerned Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Judicial) within sixty days from the date of this order. This Court also directs that if a Tehsildar or Tehsildar (Judicial) does not decide the encroachment proceedings provided under section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 67(6) within 90 days from the date of show cause notice and no sufficient reasons recorded for delay, treating it misconduct under rule 195 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 read with section 233 Rule (xvii) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for initiating departmental proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 against him for punishment.

35. The above exercises i.e. removal of encroachment and taking action against the erring officers should be carried out within Ninety days, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons including who have also encroached the public land entrusted to the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti of the Gram Panchayat or any other authority. The entire process shall be done as per RC Form Nos.19, 20, 21 provided under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for removal of 5 WPIL No. 1163 of 2025 encroachment. The public utility land shall be restored on its original nature so that it may be used for the purpose as it is created for in the revenue record.

36. The police authorities are directed to extend all necessary cooperation and assistance to the revenue authorities in the exercise of removal of encroachment from the public utility land. They shall also ensure that the process of removal of encroachment is carried out peacefully and without any hindrance, maintaining public order at all times.

37. The concerned respondent authorities shall communicate the action taken by them to the informant and the informant shall be provided opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceedings. If any encroachment is still on State land/public utility land in the State of Uttar Pradesh and information is yet not given by Chairman i.e. Pradhan and Secretary i.e. Lekhpal to Tehsildar under Rule 66 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 or Inspector or any other official of the department/authority to the competent authority for removal of encroachment, civil contempt proceedings may be initiated by any person, in the High Court for non compliance of this order of the High Court.

38. The Additional Chief Secretaries/Principal Secretaries, of the concerned departments of Government of Uttar Pradesh are directed to examine the matter in view of the continuing encroachments upon public land or land reserved for public utility purposes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is a matter of concern that such encroachments still persist despite availability of several officers entrusted with the duty of protecting and supervising the public utility land such as ponds, roads, parks, play ground, water covering areas etc. It is imperative that effective measures be taken to ensure the preservation, protection, and restoration of State land and public utility land, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and the Rules, 2016 framed thereunder and also any other provisions of special Acts or Rules.

39. This Court is also directing that if any land belonging to the State Government or any Local bodies/authorities, is illegally occupied or encroached by any person, the Inspector of the concerned department/authority or any other official is duty bound to inform the concerned authority of the department about the encroachment, to initiate proceedings for removal of the encroachment and also restore the property in original form. In case, the concerned inspector/official does not inform about any kind of 6 WPIL No. 1163 of 2025 encroachment on the said land and information comes otherwise, departmental proceedings for misconduct and criminal proceeding of criminal breach of trust treating also as abettor as well as conspirator, shall be initiated against him a s well as other erring official as he/they are the custodian of the properties entrusted to them as government authorities.

40. This Court further directs that if any land, recorded in the revenue record of a tehsil or record of a local body, in the name of authority or for public use; if the land is encroached by any person, the encroachment shall be removed by the tehsildar or any other authority of the local bodies within the time frame as prescribed under the law. Furthermore, if any land of any authority is encroached by any person and its information comes in the knowledge of the higher authority otherwise, than by the concerned Inspector or other official under obligation to inform and if the higher authority is not taking action against the Inspector or other official, the role of higher authority may be assumed as abettor or conspirator in respect of the encroached property as the officers of the authority are custodian of the property."

9. In view of above and on perusal of instructions produced by learned Standing Counsel, it appears that, in spite of the eviction order passed earlier in respect of Rangi Lal, the father of the respondent no.7, after his death, no effective proceedings are taken by Tehsildar and other officials for ejectment of present trespasser, who is said to be respondent no.7, son of Rangi Lal. Let a copy of this order be sent to Magistrate, Bahraich, to issue necessary directions to Tehsildar and other officials to expedite the matter of ejectment of the trespasser, which has been alleged in this matter and get the land evicted from the possession of the trespasser at the earliest.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. November 19, 2025 Mohd. Sharif (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench