Allahabad High Court
SACCHIDANAND MAURYAversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- 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, Sacchidanand Maurya, filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to compel certain respondents to remove an obstruction on a public path located on plots 133 and 134 in Banpokhara, Mau district, and to register the matter under Section 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The court noted a preliminary objection raised by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the same Code, as affirmed in the recent judgment of Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and the earlier decision in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. The judge held that because an alternative statutory remedy is available, the petition cannot be entertained. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 67 before the appropriate authority. The petition was therefore disposed of without granting the writ.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition for mandamus is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, is available.
- Whether the court can direct the removal of an obstruction on a public path through a writ of mandamus in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 26, 67
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Writ of Mandamus
- Alternative Remedy
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Obstruction Removal
- Administrative Law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1264 of 2026
Sacchidanand Maurya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Om Prakash, Sanjay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and Sri Prem Bahadur Singh, holding brief of Sri R.
P. Shukla, learned counsel for the 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 writ of
mandamus directing the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 to remove the
obstruction as created by the respondent no. 6 and his
colleague over the public path situated over the plot no. 133
area 0.022 hectare and plot no. 134 area 0.025 hectare situated
in village Banpokhara, Pergana- Natthupur, Tahsil- Madhuban,
District-Mau, expeditiously by registering a under section 26 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and decide the same within specified
period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
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. 1264 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 18, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…