Allahabad High Court
BHARTIYA KISAN UNION LOKSHAKTIversusSECRETARY LAND REVENUEFINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 17 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
Because an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 exists, the writ petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed.
Summary
The Bhartiya Kisan Union Lokshakti filed a public interest litigation seeking a court order directing revenue authorities to remove alleged illegal encroachments on several plots recorded as public utility land in Kanpur Dehat. The respondents, including the Secretary of the Land Revenue‑Finance Department, argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. Citing the Division Bench decision in Amaruddin Ansari Vs State of U.P. (PIL No.655 of 2026) and the earlier Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. (2023 (12) ADJ 226), the court held that the existence of this alternative remedy bars the writ petition. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the petition and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the said provision. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which precludes the High Court from entertaining the writ petition.
- Whether the High Court can issue a direction to remove encroachments on public utility land without the petitioner first invoking the alternative remedy.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- illegal encroachment
- public utility land
- alternative remedy
- Section 67
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- jurisdiction
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2238 of 2026
Bhartiya Kisan Union Lokshakti
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Secretary Land Revenuefinance Department
Government Of Uttar Pradesh And 17 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, Anil
Kumar Singh, Vaibhav Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State. Sri Hari Narayan Singh, Advocate, has accepted
notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the revenue
authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by respondent nos.8
to 18 from Plot Nos. 201, 80, 200, 105, 100, 195, 194, 185, 106, 509, 181,
380, 211, 333 and 397, recorded as public utility land in the revenue
records, relating to Village Sithaupurwa, Tehsil Chhibramau, District
Kanpur Dehat.
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. 2238 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.)
September 18, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…