1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha.
2. This public interest litigation has been filed with a prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith remove the illegal possession of opposite party no. 5 over Gaon Sabha land of Gata No. 478/2.736, 474/5.666, 479/0.559, 338/1.403, 475/mi./7.300, 478 mi/1.242 hectare total area of 18.902 hectare situated at Village - Rasyora, Pargana -Ramkot, Tehsil and District- Sitapur.
3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not disclosed complete facts, as the orders dated 12.4.2019 and 21.6.2019 on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming for removal of the possession of the opposite party no. 5 have been challenged in Case No. 01185 of 2019 (computerized number-C201910000001185) Sitapur Educational Institution through Secretary Vs. State of U.P. under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the same is pending before the Additional Commissioner,Lucknow. The petitioner could have verified the same from bhulekh.com because on that site information of every khasra and pendency of case is mentioned.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a public interest litigation, which was dismissed, as the petitioner had not disclosed the credentials, even then the present petition has also been filed without giving complete facts.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not having knowledge of filing of the appeal and it has been mentioned in the paragraph no. 13.
6. In view of above, the petitioner has filed the present public interest litigation without disclosing the complete and correct facts. The petitioner is an Advocate, therefore, he should have been more cautious in filing public interest litigation and the same should have been filed after proper enquiry and with correct facts. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will not file such petition in future without proper enquiry. He also submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed.
8. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Senior Registrar of this Court within a period of two weeks from today failing which Senior Registrar shall take appropriate action for realizing the amount.
....................... (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Anuj Singh