Allahabad High Court
KRISHNA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 14 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
Because an alternative statutory remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 exists, the court declined to entertain the PIL and disposed of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner filed a public‑interest litigation seeking a court direction to remove illegal encroachments on plots 733 and 738 in Village Jagdishpur, Uttar Pradesh. The respondents contended that the petitioner has a specific statutory remedy under Sections 26 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and cited earlier judgments (Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P.) supporting that view. The court examined the preliminary objection that an alternative remedy exists and held that it is not inclined to entertain the petition when such a remedy is available. It directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the Revenue Code and stated that any application thereunder would be decided after hearing all parties. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without further hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Sections 26/67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 to remove the encroachment.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a PIL when an alternative remedy under the Revenue Code is available.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 26, 67
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- illegal encroachment
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- alternative remedy
- jurisdiction
- petition disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2284 of 2026
Krishna Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 14 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prabhakar, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, 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 Azad Rai, 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 nos. 733 and 738 recorded as Chak Marg in the revenue records
relating to Village Jagdishpur, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj.
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 26/67 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 26/67 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. 2284 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
Checking your session…