Allahabad High Court
Himanshu Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:74532-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 11187 of 2025
Himanshu Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Dileep Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ashish Verma, Pankaj Verma
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Pankaj Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 6 and 7.
2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
"i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to remove the problem of water logging adjacent to gata no. 81, admeasuring area 0.174 hectare situated at NZA Kheri, Pargana-Kheri, District- Lakhimpur forthwith.
ii. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to restrain the private respondents from changing the nature of pond."
3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondents no. 8 to 10 is dispensed with.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed Public Interest Litigation No. 934 of 2022 praying for removal of the alleged illegal encroachment from Gata No. 81 ad-measuring 0.174 hectare, which was recorded in the khatauni as a pond. Such Public Interest Litigation was dismissed on 22.12.2022. The petitioner again filed Public Interest Litigation No. 960 of 2025, which was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh petition by this Court?s order dated 18.09.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed Public Interest Litigation No. 1020 of 2025 with improvement in pleadings and praying for more relief. When it was pointed out to the Court that the petitioner had repeatedly filed Public Interest Litigations for the same cause of action, the petitioner tendered an unconditional apology and the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to seek relief with regard to removal of water logging from the area where the petitioner was residing.
5. Now, this writ petition has been filed only because private persons, who own Gata No. 81 as per the revenue record, are making plotting over the said land leading to water logging adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The shape of the pond is also changed and water which is drained out of Gata No. 81 is affecting the construction of the petitioner on the adjacent land.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 6 and 7 has stated that the writ petition is not maintainable.
7. We have gone through the order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 934 of 2022, the order dated 18.09.2025 in Public Interest Litigation No. 960 of 2025, and the order dated 17.10.2025 in Public Interest Litigation No. 1020 of 2025. When this Court dismissed Public Interest Litigation No. 1020 of 2025, this Court passed a detailed order, which is being quoted in its entirety as follows:?
"1. Heard.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
"i. A writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to remove the construction of private respondents from land of gata no.81, admeasuring area 0.174 hectare situated at NZA Kheri, Pargana-Kheri, District-Lakhimpur by restoring the pond in its original shape.
ii. A writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to remove the problem of water logging adjacent to gata no.81, admeasuring area 0.174 hectare situated at NZA Kheri, Pargana-Kheri, District-Lakhimpur forthwith.
iii. A writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to clean the pond of gata no.81, admeasuring area 0.174 hectare situated at NZA Kheri, Pargana-Kheri, District-Lakhimpur.
iv. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
v. Allow this writ petition with costs."
3. The petitioner-Shri Himanshu Gupta is present before us. He says that he was not aware about the requirement of disclosing filing of earlier writ petition and also that he was not aware about the result of the same. He accepts the fact that he did not inform his Counsel who filed this second writ petition on the same facts.
4. Be that as it may, this can hardly be a justification for filing the second writ petition on same facts after dismissal of the earlier one vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Public Interest Litigation No.934 of 2022 which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Shri Pankaj Verma, learned counsel representing the Nagar Panchayat, Kheri.
By means of this Public Interest Litigation purported filed in public interest a prayer has been made to direct the respondents to remove the alleged illegal encroachment from gata no.81 admeasuing 0.174 Hectare which is recorded as pond.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon khatauni which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition and pertains to 1426F to 1427F, according to which khasra plot no.81 though is in the nature of pond/talab, however, it is recorded in the khatauni in the name of certain individuals.
Accordingly, the pond does not appear to be a public pond and rather prima facie it appears that it is a personal property of the persons recorded in the khautani which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition.
In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the petition which is hereby dismissed"
5. Nevertheless, we do not proceed further to impose any cost or take any other action against the petitioner in the solemn hope that he will not do it again especially as it does appear that he is not aware about the procedures and law in this regard.
6. As regard relief No.1 and 3 the same stands concluded by the earlier judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed in earlier P.I.L. No.934 of 2022 preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner can avail other remedies but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As regard the relief No.2, on being asked as to what concern did the petitioner have. In this regard, the petitioner submitted that the pond in question is situated in front of his house, meaning thereby, he has a personal interest in the matter, therefore, we see no reason to entertain this petition even for relief No.2 as a P.I.L., however, we leave it open for the petitioner to file a separate petition or seek such other remedy that may be permissible in law but only in respect of relief No.2 which has already been quoted hereinabove.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed."
8. It is not understood why the counsel for the petitioner continues to mislead the petitioner with regard to the remedy available to him and has repeatedly advised him to file writ petitions, whereas in case the petitioner?s easementary rights are being affected in any manner, he has the remedy of approaching the Civil Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)
November 18, 2025
Darpan Sharma
