JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner claims himself to be an Advocate in the Civil Court at Azamgarh and has filed the instant Public Interest Litigation praying for a direction to the District Magistrate concerned to restore the status of a pond situate over plot no. 204 at village Shibli, Azamgarh. 2. The contention is that keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others reported in 2001 (6) SCC 496 , the respondents are under an obligation to execute the directions contained therein and to prevent any encroachment or unauthorised occupation over ponds and lakes. 3. The petitioner contends that while he was on a morning walk on 17.8.2009 near the disputed site, he found that some construction work is going on, which according to him fell within the area of the pond and, therefore, he moved a complaint on 17.8.2009, which is annexure 3 to this writ petition. The said application alleges that the pond is entered in the revenue records as such for the past almost one century, and in support of such contention the petitioner has filed the relevant Khatauni of 1391 Fasli, which corresponds to the year 1984. A perusal of the said revenue record extract indicates that there is a small area of part of plot no. 204 entered as 204/1M, which is indicated under the heading of area submerged under water. Column 3 of the same does not indicate the period as to when the said pond came into existence. 4. The contention raised is that the pond is being encroached by unscruplous persons, and upon an enquiry on the spot, the labourers who were involved in the construction work did not disclose the name of such person who may be responsible for the same or the owner of the JCB machine, which was operating on the spot. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of the complaint the District Magistrate has not taken any action till date. 6. From a perusal of the extract of the revenue records, it appears that the area in dispute falls within the area of Tehsil Sadar and the Khatauni describes the same as a Non-Z.A. area, which means that the Abolition of Zamindari has not yet taken place in the area concerned. 6. From a perusal of the extract of the revenue records, it appears that the area in dispute falls within the area of Tehsil Sadar and the Khatauni describes the same as a Non-Z.A. area, which means that the Abolition of Zamindari has not yet taken place in the area concerned. The law regulating such areas is contained in the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 and such other laws which have been framed time to time including the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Where the Zamindari has been abolished by way of a notification, the law regulating such area is the U.P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition Act, 1953. In both the contingencies there are provisions which provide for taking of action in the event any such encroachment is attempted. 7. The petitioner being a practicing lawyer would be reasonably expected to know the law which governs such proceedings. In our opinion, where the land is being encroached upon or not, is a matter of investigation in fact by the Competent Authority, which may require appropriate proceedings of demarcation or location of the boundary of the disputed area. To investigate and find out any such encroachment a procedure has been provided for under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, where the Competent Authority is empowered to proceed in such matters on an appropriate proceedings being instituted. Once the law provides for a particular procedure and which is, in our opinion, a complete code in itself, then taking recourse to a public interest litigation for the same may not be desirable as being ill-advised. The petitioner being a lawyer ought to have examined the procedure of law applicable and, thereafter, ought to have taken the recourse to law instead of rushing to this Court. 8. The contention on behalf of the petitioner by relying on the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra) that such encroachment deserves to be removed cannot be disputed as a proposition of law. 9. However, we do not find that the decision in Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case any where dispenses with the procedure to be followed under some statutory law, which is required to be observed in such matters. 10. 9. However, we do not find that the decision in Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case any where dispenses with the procedure to be followed under some statutory law, which is required to be observed in such matters. 10. At this juncture, we may refer to an order passed by this Court at Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 1621 (MB) PIL of 2008 (Nanhey Lal v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Lucknow and others), wherein the Division Bench framed the following questions for consideration : “The questions involved in the present writ petition mainly are : (1) whether the principle of sustainable development would be applicable in such cases? (2) whether the case of Hinch Lal Tewari (supra) mandates the State and its authorities to restore all that land, which is recorded as pond/Talab after demolishing and removing the structures standing thereon? (3) whether the land though recorded as Talab, but has lost its entity as Talab by passage of time, so to say, that it is completely dried up, the same has to be restored by filling water, without judging the suitability and the means that whether it can be used as water reservoir or not? (4) whether the land which is recorded as Talab, may be with or without water, if the same is required for planned development, e.g. for developing a housing colony or for any other public purpose, the same can be used for the said purpose or it has to be left as it is? (5) whether all land, which are recorded as Talab irrespective of their utility and use stand immune from being used for any other public purpose, more so in larger public interest, where they cannot be used as water reservoir to meet the needs of the people? (6) whether in cases where patta has been granted to the land less persons over the land recorded as Talab, which vests in the Gaon Sabha finding that actually there is no Talab on the spot then such pattas are to be cancelled and the land is to be restored as Talab? (7) whether the mandate of Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case is to restore all ponds and Talabs, if recorded on the date of vesting as such irrespective of the use for which such land has been put to for a considerable long time?” 11. (7) whether the mandate of Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case is to restore all ponds and Talabs, if recorded on the date of vesting as such irrespective of the use for which such land has been put to for a considerable long time?” 11. We are informed that the aforesaid petition has not proceeded any further. Such matters have been frequently brought to this Court for adjudication. We have referred to the aforesaid questions as in our opinion the Division Bench had rightly formulated them, which are to be gone into before, it is concluded that the encroachment is one which does not deserve examination or investigation. In our opinion, such investigation has to proceed by making an enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law by the appropriate revenue authority or the competent authority who is enjoined under the statute to investigate such matters and adjudicate the same. 12. A public interest litigation of the nature presently at hand, without there being complete factual disclosure and based on vague assertions, cannot be an appropriate proceeding for arriving at a conclusion about encroachments as alleged. It is the Competent Authorities, who are to deal with the matter that have the machinery with them to get the matter investigated and thereafter pass appropriate orders. 13. A mandamus from this Court for removing encroachments, where there are vague facts alleged and disputed questions of fact involved, does not commend to us, nor is it supported in law. Taking the case in hand the petitioner has alleged that he has been unable to find out the name of the person, who was responsible for the operation of the constructions that were allegedly going on over the disputed land. Such being the nature of pleadings, that too even by a lawyer cannot be appreciated and is unexpected. The Court therefore would refrain in such a matter to proceed to carry out a fishing and roving enquiry which may involve the rights of third parties as well. In the instant case neither the name of the alleged encroacher has been mentioned nor any private individual has been made a party in these proceedings, which may even compel us to prima facie believe the allegations for the purposes of issuance of notice in this litigation. 14. In the instant case neither the name of the alleged encroacher has been mentioned nor any private individual has been made a party in these proceedings, which may even compel us to prima facie believe the allegations for the purposes of issuance of notice in this litigation. 14. We are conscious that even public interest litigations involve spending of public time and public money by this Court and, therefore, the Court has to be cautious in treading such a path. The petitioner in our opinion if has a grievance, has also been provided with a remedy under the statutory law relating to land tenures for the redressal of his grievances. An action can also be brought about in a representative capacity before the Competent Court or before the Competent Authority either by way of a regular proceeding or through a summary proceeding as the case may be. 15. We are also conscious of the fact that it is the duty of the State to protect public property and to remove encroachments, but this does not mean that there can be an automatic dispensation of the procedure prescribed in law to carry out the functions of the State. We are fortified , in our view, by the opinion expressed by a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others in Writ Petition No. 1965 of 2007 decided on 23.12.2008, where the following opinion has been expressed in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. “6. In the above context, it is also necessary to emphasise that many instances have come to our notice where, seizing upon the general observation made by the High Court that steps should be taken to remove the encroachment, the Government officials, without taking recourse to appropriate procedure contemplated under law, have been proactive to neck out the encroachers without giving them any opportunity of hearing. In this context, it is apparent that the Government Officials have totally lost sight of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2005(2) CTC 741 (Ramaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu and others), wherein it has been emphasised that before removal of any encroachment, the appropriate procedure contemplated under law has to be followed. In this context, it is apparent that the Government Officials have totally lost sight of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2005(2) CTC 741 (Ramaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu and others), wherein it has been emphasised that before removal of any encroachment, the appropriate procedure contemplated under law has to be followed. Whenever any order has been passed by the High Court that the encroachers should be removed, it obviously implies that such encroachers should be removed in accordance with law and not otherwise. 7. In the above context, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2004-3-L.W. 143 (Rame Gowda (Deceased) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Deceased) by LRs and another) is required to be borne in mind. It is well settled principle that in India, no person is entitled to take law in his own hands and forcibly remove any person from possession, even if such person is a trespasser. 8. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. It is the duty of the State to protect the properties belonging to the State. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 should take appropriate action in accordance with law to remove any unauthorised encroachment. However, this does not mean that the encroachers should be removed without following the procedure contemplated under law, which has already been clarified in the Full Bench decision reported in 2005 (2) CTC 741 (cited supra). The authorities are also required to keep in view the G.O. Ms. No. 854 dated 30.12.2006 and also the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 16636 of 1995 & 22274 of 2007 (Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and others) disposed of on 29.4.2008. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 16. To say the least, the decision in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra) is a guidance in law to protect encroachment of public property in the shape of ponds and to restore their position, but on a closer scrutiny, we do not find that the said judgment in any way allows dispensation of the procedure prescribed in law to be adopted for removal of an encroachment or restoration of a pond. It is to be noted that whenever such a mandamus is issued by this Court, the same does not amount to a mandamus for uprooting even a trespasser without following the procedure prescribed by law. Such instances are not unknown to this Court and with experience it has been found that such public interest litigations disclose serious disputed questions of fact which are agitated. One such decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Hon’ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.) was presiding over the bench held as follows. “In this public interest litigation, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are selling the public Pond/Talab. According to the petitioner, Khasra No. 1203 having an area of 5 bighas 15 biswas is a public Pond/Talab, which is being transferred to other persons. Petitioner himself has averred that on 5.1.1960, by the order of the Kanoongo, the name of father of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 has been recorded as landholder under Category-VIII. Mr. Raj Kumar Dhama appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the area in question being a pond, it is the obligation of the State Authorities to prevent its transfer. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, (2001) 6 SCC 496 . Whether the area in question is a pond or property of respondent Nos. 5 t0 7 is a question, which can appropriately be decided in appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. According to the petitioner’s own showing, the land in question has been recorded in the name of the father of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the revenue record. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this public interest litigation is absolutely misconceived and is,accordingly,dismissed. 23.3.2009.” 17. It is well settled that a mandamus cannot be issued to disobey law. If the law prescribes a procedure to be followed then the procedure cannot be obviated by a mere filing of a public interest litigation . Deviation from law by the State would lead to unrestrained action reflecting tyrrany. 23.3.2009.” 17. It is well settled that a mandamus cannot be issued to disobey law. If the law prescribes a procedure to be followed then the procedure cannot be obviated by a mere filing of a public interest litigation . Deviation from law by the State would lead to unrestrained action reflecting tyrrany. Unguided and unbridled action, without proper investigation on the basis of unfounded allegations, or on the strength of mere pretentious public outcry, should not stir the firm foundations of the tried and tested procedures of law. The State authorities while protecting public property are not to discard claims outright on sheer presumptions without attempting to find out the truth. 18. We are therefore of the opinion that the present public interest litigation is absolutely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievances. We have no doubt, in case the petitioner does endeavor to take recourse to the law available in such matters then the forum concerned shall proceed to take action by way of appropriate measures in accordance with law to deal with the matter expeditiously. 19. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. ————