Allahabad High Court
PRADEEP KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition is not maintainable because an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, is available.
Summary
The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, filed a PIL seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to remove private constructions on land recorded as Navin Parti in the revenue records. The respondents argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, citing earlier judgments. The court examined the precedent set in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P., which upheld the availability of the Section 67 remedy. Concluding that the petitioner could pursue the matter through the appropriate revenue authority, the court declined to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, is available.
- Whether the court can issue a mandamus directing removal of constructions on the disputed land.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Mandamus
- Alternative Remedy
- Revenue Law
- Land Encroachment
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1196 of 2026
Pradeep Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 10 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sandeep Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State and Sri Rajan
Chauhan, holding brief of Sri Azad Rai for the Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to
respondents no.3 & 4 to remove the constructions of houses being raised by the
private respondents over the land being Khata No.678 and 680 measuring area
0.0490 hectare recorded as Naveen Parti in the Revenue Records and Banjar Khata
No.666 measuring area 0.0490 hectare situated in Village Bhulendra, Tehsil Handia,
P.S. Saraymamrej District Prayagraj is also recorded as Navin Parti in the Revenue
Records, belonging to the respondent no. 5."
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.
WPIL No. 1196 of 2026
2
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 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…