# Mahesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors v. State of U.P & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 977
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-13
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 5107 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-chandra-tiwari-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54835
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ
of
mandamus
restraining
the
ongoing
construction of a pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar
Yojana' over land recorded as Banjar ?

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of
mandamus - Restraint upon construction of
pond under 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' - Petitioners
claiming lease granted in the year 1999 -
Counter affidavit asserting that pond is being
constructed under 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' over
land bearing Gata No. 14 recorded as Banjar -
Petitioners recorded over Gata No. 14Ba - No
specific denial in rejoinder affidavit - Revenue
records indicating land as Banjar - Entries in
revenue record carry presumption of correctness
unless
rebutted
by
cogent
evidence
-
Petitioners failed to bring on record any material
to establish that the land over which the pond is
being constructed is recorded in their name or
forms part of their holding - 'Mission Amrit
Sarovar' scheme aimed at developing and
rejuvenating water bodies - Development of
'Amrit Sarovars' envisaged for augmenting water
resources and improving water ecology -
Welfare-oriented
and
environment-protective
initiative undertaken in the larger public interest
- Individual interest, if in conflict, to yield to
community interest - Maxim necessitas publica
major est quam privata - No demonstrable
infringement of petitioners' recorded rights or
possession - No ground for interference under
Article 226 .

HELD Land bearing Gata No. 14 recorded as
Banjar in the revenue records and the
construction of pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar
Yojana' was being made over the said plot and
not over the plot over which the petitioners
claim to be recorded as tenure holders. Entries
in the revenue record carry a presumption of
correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence,
and the petitioners have failed to bring on
record any material to establish that the land
over which the pond is being constructed is
recorded in their name or that it forms part of
their holding. Construction of pond being a
welfare-oriented
and
environment-protective
initiative undertaken in the larger public interest,
any interference may be warranted only when
there is clear violation of individual rights or
statutory provisions, which has not been
demonstrated. In absence of any demonstrable
infringement of petitioners' recorded rights or
possession, no ground for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India made out
and the writ petition dismissed. (Paras 16-21)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Raj Kumar Bind v. State of U.P. and 4 Others.

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

## Text

10 All. Mahesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
977
23.
Let
this
judgment
be
communicated to the Manager, Committee
of
Management,
Chashmai
Rahmat
Oriental College, Ghazipur, the Registrar/
Inspector, Arabic-Persian Madrasa, U.P.,
Lucknow and the District Minority Welfare
Officer,
Ghazipur
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 977
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 5107 of 2023

Mahesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P..& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Deepak Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ
of
mandamus
restraining
the
ongoing
construction of a pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar
Yojana' over land recorded as Banjar ?

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of
mandamus - Restraint upon construction of
pond under 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' - Petitioners
claiming lease granted in the year 1999 -
Counter affidavit asserting that pond is being
constructed under 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' over
land bearing Gata No. 14 recorded as Banjar -
Petitioners recorded over Gata No. 14Ba - No
specific denial in rejoinder affidavit - Revenue
records indicating land as Banjar - Entries in
revenue record carry presumption of correctness
unless
rebutted
by
cogent
evidence
-
Petitioners failed to bring on record any material
to establish that the land over which the pond is
being constructed is recorded in their name or
forms part of their holding - 'Mission Amrit
Sarovar' scheme aimed at developing and
rejuvenating water bodies - Development of
'Amrit Sarovars' envisaged for augmenting water
resources and improving water ecology -
Welfare-oriented
and
environment-protective
initiative undertaken in the larger public interest
- Individual interest, if in conflict, to yield to
community interest - Maxim necessitas publica
major est quam privata - No demonstrable
infringement of petitioners' recorded rights or
possession - No ground for interference under
Article 226 .

HELD Land bearing Gata No. 14 recorded as
Banjar in the revenue records and the
construction of pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar
Yojana' was being made over the said plot and
not over the plot over which the petitioners
claim to be recorded as tenure holders. Entries
in the revenue record carry a presumption of
correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence,
and the petitioners have failed to bring on
record any material to establish that the land
over which the pond is being constructed is
recorded in their name or that it forms part of
their holding. Construction of pond being a
welfare-oriented
and
environment-protective
initiative undertaken in the larger public interest,
any interference may be warranted only when
there is clear violation of individual rights or
statutory provisions, which has not been
demonstrated. In absence of any demonstrable
infringement of petitioners' recorded rights or
possession, no ground for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India made out
and the writ petition dismissed. (Paras 16-21)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Raj Kumar Bind v. State of U.P. and 4 Others.

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

27. List of Keywords
Writ of mandamus - Article 226 - Amrit
Sarovar Yojana - Mission Amrit Sarovar -
Construction of pond - Gata No. 14 Banjar -
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gata
No.
14Ba
-
Revenue
records
-
Presumption of correctness - Public interest -
Community interest - Welfare-oriented initiative
-
Environment-protective
scheme
-
No
demonstrable infringement - Dismissal.

28. CASE ARISING FROM
Construction of pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar
Yojana' over land bearing Gata No. 14, Village
Daudpur @ Murad Gaon, Tehsil Sadar, District
Shahjahanpur.

29. Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Deepak Kumar Srivastava
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Sher Bahadur
Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava,J.)

1.
Heard
Sri
Deepak
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners and Sri Abhishek Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present petition has been
filed seeking issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to
restrain the ongoing construction of a pond
over Gata No. 14, Area 0.38 hectare, situate
in Village Daudpur @ Murad Gaon, Tehsil
Sadar, District Shahjahanpur, or, in the
alternative,
to
pay
appropriate
compensation to the petitioners in respect
of the said land.

3. As per the averments made in
the writ petition, the competent authority
had, upon due verification, granted a lease
in favour of the petitioners in the year
1999, and the petitioners claim to have
been in possession of the aforesaid parcel
of land since then. It is stated that
respondent no. 4, the Gram Pradhan,
commenced construction of a pond over the
said plot, which the petitioners opposed.
Notwithstanding
such
objections,
the
construction activities were continued.

4. It has further been stated that an
application
dated
29.11.2022
was
submitted by the petitioners before the SubDivisional
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Shahjahanpur, seeking restraint upon the
construction over the leased land. Pursuant
thereto, on 02.12.2022, directions were
issued to the Station House Officer and the
Revenue Inspector concerned to make an
inquiry in accordance with law.

5.
The
petitioners
thereafter
submitted representations dated 13.12.2022
before
the
District
Magistrate,
Shahjahanpur,
as
well
as
the
SubDivisional Magistrate, Sadar, and other
authorities, reiterating their grievance that
construction of the pond was being carried
out illegally over their land, despite their
names being duly recorded in the revenue
records.

6. It is alleged that despite the
representations and directions for inquiry,
no effective action was taken by the
authorities, and the construction continued
unabated. The petitioners assert that the
land in question stands recorded in their
names and that no notice or opportunity of
hearing was ever afforded prior to the
initiation of construction.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the petitioners approached this Court
invoking
its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking protection of their rights and
redressal of their grievance regarding the
alleged illegal construction.

8. A copy of the Khatauni extract
of Fasli 1425-30, in respect of the village in
10 All. Mahesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
979
question has been filed as Annexure-3 to
the writ petition indicating therein that the
petitioners along with certain other persons
are recorded as tenure holders over land
bearing Gata No. 14Ba. The representation
which has been placed on record also
contains reference to the petitioners'
assertion in regard to Gata No. 14Ba.

9.
Counsel
for
the
State
respondents has placed reliance on the
Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos.2 and 3, wherein it has been
averred that the pond has been constructed
under the 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' over land
bearing Gata No. 14, recorded as Banjar,
and that the petitioners are not concerned
with the same. It has been further stated
that in the Khatauni of Fasli 1425-30 the
petitioner is recorded over Gata No.14Ba.
The Khatauni extract in respect of Gata No.
14, Fasli 1425-30, has also been placed on
record along with counter affidavit, as
Annexure CA-1, which indicates that the
plot is recorded as Banjar.

10. It is submitted by the counsel
for
the
State
respondents
that
the
aforestated assertions made in the counter
affidavit have not been specifically denied
in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner.

11. From a perusal of the counter
affidavit
it is clear
that the
State
respondents have categorically asserted that
land bearing Gata No.14, area 7.458
hectares of Khata No. 145, is recorded as
Banjar and the construction of the pond
under the 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana', is being
carried out upon the said plot, and that the
petitioners have no concern with the same.
In reply to the aforesaid assertion made in
the comter affidavit, there is no specific
denial in the rejoinder affidavit of the
petitioners.
12.
Counsel
for
the
State
respondents has placed reliance on a
decision of this Court in Raj Kumar Bind
Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others1, to
explain the scope and importance of
'Mission Amrit Sarovar' Scheme.

13. The decision in the case of Raj
Kumar Bind (supra) takes notice of the
'Mission Amrit Sarovar' scheme launched
by the Government of India at the national
level, aimed at developing and rejuvenating
water bodies in cach district of the country
as part of the celebration of 'Azadi Ka
Amrit Mahotsav' to commemorate 75 years
of independence of the country.

14. Attention of the court is drawn
to the fact that development of 'Amrit
Sarovars' are a symbol of constructive
action adopted by the government on the
occasion of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav' and
would create sustainable and long term
productive assets beneficial to both the
sentient beings and the environment. It is
also pointed out that 'Amrit Sarovars'
would play an important role in increasing
the availability of water both on surface
and underground.
15.
Counsel
for
the
State
respondents has also drawn attention to a
Government Order dated 27.4.2022, also
noticed in the aforesaid judgment, to point
out that the 'Amrit Sarovar' Scheme was
launched as part of celebration of 'Azadi Ka
Amrit Mahotsav' to commemorate 75 years
of independence of the country. It is
pointed out that as per directions issued by
the Government, 'Amrit Sarovars' are to be
developed
in
each
district
and
the
responsibility of maintaining them, would
be of the concerned Gram Panchayats.

16. From a perusal of the pleadings
and the material brought on record, the
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
position that emerges, is that the land
bearing Gata No.14 is recorded as Banjar in
the revenue records and the construction of
pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' was
being made over the said plot and not over
the plot over which the petitioners claim to
be recorded as tenure holders.

17. The objective of the 'Mission
Amrit Sarovar' scheme, as reflected from
the Government Order and the guidelines
which have been referred, is indicative of
the fact that the development of 'Amrit
Sarovars' is envisaged for augmenting
water resources and improving water
ecology with a view to create sustainable
and long term productive assets. This Court
is mindful of the basic legal principle that
while individual rights and interests would
enjoy constitutional protection, they may
be subordinated in appropriate cases to the
exigencies of public interest or public
necessity. While Courts would scrutinize
administrative actions that impinge on
individual rights, such rights may be
regulated or restricted where there exists a
demonstrable
and
overriding
public
interest. The scheme being for a larger
public purpose any individual interest, if in
conflict, would have to yield to the
community interest. The principle is
encapsulated in the maxim necessitas
publica major est quam privata public
interest is greater to private interest.

18. This Court may also take notice
of the well settled principle that entries in
the revenue record carry a presumption of
correctness unless rebutted by cogent
evidence. The petitioners, in the present
case, have failed to bring on record any
material to establish that the land over
which the pond is being constructed is
recorded in their name or that it forms part
of
their
holding.
Mere
filing
of
representations,
unsupported
by
documentary
proof
showing
title
or
possession, cannot dislodge the inference
which is to be otherwise drawn on the basis
of entries in the revenue records indicating
the land as Banjar.

19. The construction of pond,
regarding which a restraint is sought being
a
welfare-oriented
and
environmentprotective initiative undertaken in the larger
public
interest,
any
interference
in
implementation of the same may be
warranted only when there is clear
violation of individual rights or statutory
provisions. No such violation has been
demonstrated in the present case.

20. In absence of any demonstrable
infringement of petitioners recorded
rights or possession, no ground for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution is made out.

21. The writ petition therefore is
bereft of merits and it is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 980
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR , J.

Writ - C No. 9597 of 2025

Avani Paridhi Energy And Communications
Pvt.Ltd.Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri
Aditya Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner: