The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation that sought removal of alleged encroachment on a revenue-recorded abadi plot, holding that such disputes are private in nature and cannot be entertained under the guise of public interest. The Court emphasized that PILs must not be weaponized for personal vendettas, especially when material facts are concealed and adjudication requires evidentiary proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Chandra Pal Singh, filed a public interest litigation seeking removal of respondent no.6 from Plot No.540, recorded in revenue records as a Class 6-2 category abadi plot. The petitioner alleged illegal encroachment by respondent no.6 and sought judicial intervention to restore the plot to its rightful status.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was allotted an abadi site for residential purposes on 20.06.2009 under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
- No construction was undertaken on the allotted plot as of the date of filing the PIL
- Respondent no.6 is in possession of the same plot, which the petitioner claims is illegal
- The petitioner already owns a house in the same village
- The State, through Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hathras, issued an instruction dated 30.10.2025 stating that proceedings under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of his allotment
- Under Sub-Rule 2(b) of Rule 64 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, allotment may be cancelled if no construction is made within the stipulated period
- The instruction further alleges that the PIL was filed due to personal differences with respondent no.6, not for public interest
Procedural History
- 20.06.2009: Petitioner allotted abadi plot for residential use
- 30.10.2025: Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hathras, issues instruction initiating proceedings under Section 66 of U.P. Revenue Code against petitioner
- 26.11.2025: Court passes interim order directing service of instruction on petitioner and requiring reply on maintainability of PIL
- 11.05.2026: Final hearing and dismissal of PIL
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought direction to remove respondent no.6 from Plot No.540, declare the possession illegal, and restore the plot to him.
The Legal Issue
Can a dispute over alleged encroachment on a revenue-recorded abadi plot, involving conflicting claims of possession and pending proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, be adjudicated through a public interest litigation when material facts are concealed and evidentiary inquiry is required?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that respondent no.6 was illegally occupying a plot recorded as abadi in revenue records, and that such encroachment affected public land use and violated land allocation norms. He argued that the Court, as guardian of public interest, must intervene to prevent unlawful occupation of government allotted land.
For the Respondent
The State, through Standing Counsel, submitted that the PIL was not filed in public interest but as a personal vendetta. The instruction dated 30.10.2025 revealed that proceedings under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were already underway against the petitioner for non-construction on his own allotted plot. The State argued that the petitioner, who already owned a house and had not developed the plot, was attempting to misuse the PIL mechanism to circumvent pending revenue proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the dispute and found that the petitioner’s claim of encroachment by respondent no.6 was not substantiated by any pleading of prior possession, title, or lawful entitlement beyond the 2009 allotment. Crucially, the petition failed to disclose the pendency of proceedings under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated against the petitioner himself.
"Removal of encroachment in the land recorded as Abadi cannot be directed in public interest litigation, as the rights of the person in occupation are determined on the basis of his period of possession, which can be decided only after taking of evidence and its appreciation, which is not permissible in the present proceeding."
The Court held that PILs are not forums for adjudicating private title or possession disputes. Such matters require factual inquiry, cross-examination, and evidence recording - procedures incompatible with the summary nature of PILs. The concealment of the petitioner’s own pending cancellation proceedings constituted suppression of material facts, a ground sufficient to dismiss the petition.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s financial status and existing property ownership undermined any claim of public interest. The dispute, as revealed by the State’s instruction, was rooted in personal animosity with respondent no.6.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed as misconceived. The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to disclose pending proceedings under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the private nature of the dispute rendered the PIL non-maintainable. No relief was granted. Costs were not awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
PILs Cannot Substitute Revenue Adjudication
- Practitioners must not file PILs to resolve private land possession disputes where revenue authorities have jurisdiction under the U.P. Revenue Code
- Any claim involving title, possession, or encroachment on abadi land requires formal proceedings under Section 66 or 67 of the Code, not writ jurisdiction
Concealment of Material Facts Is Fatal
- Failure to disclose pending proceedings against the petitioner renders a PIL liable for dismissal on grounds of suppression
- Courts will scrutinize the petitioner’s own conduct and financial status when assessing bona fides in land-related PILs
Public Interest Must Be Genuine, Not Instrumental
- A PIL must address a public wrong affecting a class of persons, not a personal grievance disguised as public concern
- Allegations of encroachment on government land must be supported by evidence of public harm, not merely private rivalry
