Allahabad High Court
PARASURAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition was dismissed because the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
The petitioner, Parasuram, filed a public interest litigation seeking mandamus to remove a public toilet encroaching on a primary school and a Panchayat Bhawan encroaching on a Khalihan, and to recover damages from responsible authorities. The respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and others, contested the petition, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The court examined the precedent set by Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and the earlier Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. decisions, which emphasized the availability of alternative statutory remedies. Relying on these precedents, the court held that when an alternative remedy exists, the court should not entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the court directing the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 67 before the appropriate authority. The matter was therefore disposed of without further orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which bars the court from entertaining the writ petition.
- Whether the court should issue a mandamus directing removal of the encroachments and recovery of damages.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- mandamus
- alternative remedy
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- encroachment
- land revenue
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1192 of 2026
Parasuram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Janardan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents. Sri Sudhir Bharti, Advocate has accepted notice
on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief(s):
"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent No. 2 to remove the
encroachment/construction (Public toilet) from the premises of
primary school from Araji No 452 and 453 recorded as primary
school in revenue record and Panchyat Bhawan from the Araji
No. 1556 recorded as Khalihan in revenue record all situated at
Village Rahsujanovipatti, Tappa Khan, Pargana Sindhua
Jobana, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushi Nagar and restore in
original shape in the ends of justice.
(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent No. 2 to recover the amount from the
responsible respondents / liable authority in the ends of
justice."
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
WPIL No. 1192 of 2026
2
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, I am not inclined to
entertain the instant petition.
5. In case the petitioner moves an application under Section 67 of Uttar
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 present petition is disposed of.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…