Allahabad High Court
MANOJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that because an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 exists, the writ petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed.
Summary
Manoj Kumar filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to take legal action to vacate a disputed land parcel (plot no. 294) in Varanasi. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, citing earlier judgments of this Court. The Court accepted this preliminary objection, noting that the petitioner could approach the appropriate authority under the said provision. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to use the alternative remedy. The petition was therefore disposed without any order of mandamus.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition seeking mandamus when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Mandamus
- Alternative Remedy
- Land Dispute
- Revenue Law
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Writ Petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1184 of 2026
Manoj Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Singh Yadav, Rama Shanker,
Shyamdhar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State. Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi has accepted
notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing
the respondent no.2 to take legal action against the respondent no.3 for vacating the
land in dispute i.e. plot no. 294 (TALAB) located at Village Karkhiyaon, Pargana-
Kolasala, Tehsil- Pindra, District Varanasi."
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that
petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach appropriate authority by
moving an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the
case of Amaruddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, passed in
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.655 of 2026, decided on 18.03.2026,
upholding the Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ
226.
4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined
to entertain the instant petition.
5. In case, the petitioner moves an application under Section 67 of Uttar
WPIL No. 1184 of 2026
2
Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate authority, the same shall
be decided after hearing all the concerned parties, in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 6, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…