Allahabad High Court

VINOD KUMAR @ VINOD KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

Summary

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State and other respondents to remove alleged illegal encroachments on public utility land in Mahua Kheda village, Agra. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, citing the Court's earlier decisions in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. The Court held that because an alternative statutory remedy is available, it would not entertain the petition. It directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 67 before the appropriate authority and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the 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 writ of mandamus directing removal of the alleged encroachments.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

public interest litigation
mandamus
illegal encroachment
public utility land
alternative remedy
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
Section 67

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1213 of 2026

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of Up And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Yadav, Viresh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C.

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents. Sri A. C. Srivastava, Advocate has accepted
notice on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief(s):

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the concerned respondents to
remove the illegal encroachment made by Respondent No.5
from Gata No. 621 (area 0.0900 recorded as Mukh Marg), Gata
No. 646 (area 0.2300 recorded as Rasta), Gata No. 665 (area
0.0670 recorded as Nali), and Gata No. 693 (area 0.0200
recorded as Chakmarg) in revenue record, situated in Village-
Mahua Kheda, Tehsil Agra, District Agra, being public utility
land."

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.
WPIL No. 1213 of 2026
2

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 7, 2026
Ashok Kr.

Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…