Allahabad High Court

DEEPAK KAPILMUNI MISHRAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 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 filed a public interest litigation seeking a court order to remove illegal encroachment on plot no. 341 in Jaunpur district. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, citing the recent Amaruddin Ansari decision which upheld the Kanhaiya Lal precedent. The court examined whether a PIL could be entertained when a specific statutory remedy is available. Relying on the earlier judgments, the court held that the existence of an alternative remedy barred the petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed without further hearing.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether a PIL seeking removal of illegal encroachment can be entertained when such an alternative remedy exists.
Whether the petition should be dismissed on the ground of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

public interest litigation
illegal encroachment
alternative remedy
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
Section 67
jurisdiction
petition dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2275 of 2026

Deepak Kapilmuni Mishra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhay Pratap Singh, Mohd Shahnawaz
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

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

2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent
authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by the encroachers
over plot no. 341 recorded as Khalihan in the revenue records relating to
Village Pasiyahi Khurd Gopalpur, Tehsil Madiyahoon, District Jaunpur.

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, 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.
WPIL No. 2275 of 2026
2

6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 23, 2026
Ashok Kr.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…