Public interest litigation for encroachment removal is rendered infructuous upon State's verification and clearance of public land.

The petitioners filed a Writ Petition (PIL) seeking a mandamus to compel respondent authorities to remove alleged encroachments from Khasra No. 1007 (Old No. 196/2) in Village Sakainiya, Udham Singh Nagar.

The petitioners contended that the land, originally a pond and drain, had been illegally occupied by several individuals and its area reduced.

On September 24, 2025, the High Court directed the SDM Gadarpur to file a responsive affidavit.

The SDM’s counter-affidavit stated that enforcement actions were carried out on November 10, 2025, resulting in the removal of encroachments, and the land was handed over to the Block Development Office for beautification.

The petitioner failed to file a rejoinder rebutting these claims, instead moving an application to implead the alleged encroachers.

1. Whether the respondent authorities had fulfilled their legal obligation to remove encroachments from the public pond land recorded in Khasra No. 1007.

2. Whether the area of the pond had been illegally reduced from its original land records.

The Court applied the principle of administrative compliance in public interest litigations involving the protection of water bodies and government land.

It relied on the evidentiary value of official affidavits and revenue records (specifically Fasli years and consolidation proceedings) to determine the status and dimensions of public land.

The legal expectation is that once the state demonstrates active remediation of an encroachment and provides a concrete plan for the maintenance of a public utility (such as beautification and cleaning of a pond), the grievance in a PIL is considered satisfied.

The Court evaluated the SDM’s detailed counter-affidavit, which documented that the encroachment removal process was completed in the presence of P.W.D. and Tehsil officials on November 10, 2025.

Regarding the alleged reduction in pond area, the Court examined the revenue history provided by the State: in Fasli year 1361 (1951), the original Khasra No. 196 (0.724 Hectare) was government land, which was later partitioned into five distinct plots during the 2002 consolidation proceedings.

The Court noted that Khasra No. 1007 was specifically recorded as a pond measuring 0.290 Hectares, contradicting the petitioner's claim of area reduction.

Since the petitioners did not file a rejoinder to contest these factual assertions by the State, the Court accepted the State's version that the encroachments were gone and a beautification scheme by the Village Panchayat was underway.

The Court declined to keep the matter pending or implead further parties, as the primary relief sought had been addressed; the writ petition and all pending applications were accordingly closed and disposed of.