JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel representing the State. 2. This public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be an advocate. 3. The prayer in this writ petition is that the lands in urban areas in UP have been shown as ponds even though the said areas have been declared to be non-agricultural areas. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cases of the persons who are tenure holders or other persons, who are occupying ponds, Pokharas and water channels etc. in non-agricultural urban areas in district Gorakhpur should not be evicted from the said lands, which have been declared to be non-agricultural lands and their cases would not be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi, 2001 (92) RD 689. Another prayer is for a mandamus restraining the respondents from evicting the recorded tenure holders from the ponds, Pokharas and water channels falling under the urban areas of district Gorakhpur. 5. The petitioner has not been able to explain as to why he has filed this broad based PIL petition and why the persons, who are sought to be evicted from the said lands by declaring them to be ponds, have not themselves challenged their eviction. 6. In the case of State of Utranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010)3 SCC 402 , it has been held that PIL can be filed in representative capacity only if the person concerned is unable to approach the Courts. No averment has been made that the persons who are being sought to be evicted are unable to approach the Courts. 7. Further, we do not understand as to what public cause would be advanced if the ratio of Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case which sought to improve the ecological balance by ensuring that ponds etc. which are inlet for rain water and which facilitate re-charge of water may be cleared off obstructions, which have been created on it. If the vigour of the said judgement is reduced, we can only except more ecological damage and a falling water table which is becoming a common phenomena both in rural and urban areas. 8. which are inlet for rain water and which facilitate re-charge of water may be cleared off obstructions, which have been created on it. If the vigour of the said judgement is reduced, we can only except more ecological damage and a falling water table which is becoming a common phenomena both in rural and urban areas. 8. The petitioner has also referred to a judgement of learned Single Judge of this Court in Rishab Dev Jain v. State of U.P. and others, (Writ B No. 57243 of 2011) decided on 20.10.2011 where in an individual petition filed by the aggrieved person, the learned Single Judge after observing that in the case before him several judicial interventions had taken place declaring the rights of the petitioner therein and hence on the strength of Hinch Lal (Supra) case he could not be evicted therefrom without following the procedure of law. 9. The present petition, it may be noted, is not an individual petition filed by the aggrieved persons. 10. In view of what has been indicated herein above, we find no merit in this case. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. ——————