Allahabad High Court
MITHILESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy under Sections 26/67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, precludes the filing of a writ petition for mandamus.
Summary
Mithilesh Kumar filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to halt and remove illegal encroachments on public utility land in Jaunpur district. The petition alleged that respondents 5 and 6 had constructed structures on land recorded as Class‑6‑1 and 6‑2 for a "Khad Gaddha" and "Nali". The State's Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Sections 26 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, citing the Court's recent decisions in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. The Court agreed that because an alternative statutory remedy exists, it would not entertain the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate revenue authority and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking mandamus can be entertained when an alternative remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, is available.
- Whether the alleged encroachment on public utility land can be addressed through a revenue code application rather than a writ.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 26, 67
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- mandamus
- illegal encroachment
- public utility land
- alternative remedy
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2292 of 2026
Mithilesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akancha Singh, Ved Mani Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities to stop the new construction and remove the illegal
encroachment made by respondent nos.5 and 6 over the public utility land bearing
Plot Nos. 1508, 1509 and 1571 recorded in the revenue records (nature of land Class-
6-1 and 6-2) for purpose of "Khad Gaddha" and "Nali" etc. situated at Village
Bhiduna, P.O. Meerganj, Tahsil Machhalishahar, 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 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, this Court is not inclined
to entertain the instant petition.
5. In case, the petitioner moves an application under Section 26/67 of
WPIL No. 2292 of 2026
2
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 24, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…