Allahabad High Court
JITENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
Jitendra Singh filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to remove an illegal encroachment on 0.38 hectare of land in Bansai village, Mathura. The petition alleged that the encroachment violated revenue laws and demanded expeditious removal. The respondents, through standing counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Court referred to its earlier decisions in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P., which upheld the availability of that statutory remedy. Since an alternative remedy existed, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of 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 the alleged illegal encroachment.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Mandamus
- Illegal Encroachment
- Land Revenue
- Alternative Remedy
- Section 67
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1263 of 2026
Jitendra Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Krishna Gopal
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 respondents State. Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava has accepted
notice on behalf of 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 the
Respondents authority to remove the illegal encroachment / construction over the
Gata No.394 area 0.3800 hectare situated revenue village Bansai Post Nagoda Tehsil
Mahawan District Mathura, expeditiously preferably within a stipulated period."
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. 1263 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 18, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…