Allahabad High Court
ARUN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that no interference is required as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
Arun Kumar filed a public interest litigation seeking the removal of alleged encroachers (respondents 4‑10) from three plots of Nagar Palika land (Plot Nos. 2091, 2261 and 1932). The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Nagar Palika, contended that the petitioner could obtain relief by invoking Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before the appropriate authority. The Court examined whether it should intervene directly or defer to the statutory remedy. Finding that an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the Court concluded that judicial interference was unnecessary. Consequently, the PIL was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a PIL for removal of encroachers on Nagar Palika land when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is available.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- land encroachment
- alternative remedy
- jurisdiction
- U.P. Revenue Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2296 of 2026
Arun Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 10 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aqueel Ahmad, Kripa Shankar Tiwari,
Shivani Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Madan Mohan Srivastava
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel
for respondent no. 11 - Nagar Palika.
2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed specifically with a
prayer that the possession of the alleged encroachers i.e. respondent nos. 4
to 10 be removed from Plot Nos. 2091, 2261 (minjumla) & 1932
(minjumla) which are Nagar Palika land.
3. Learned counsel representing Nagar Palika and learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents state that the petitioner has an
efficacious alternative remedy to approach the concerned Authority under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
4. Under the facts and circumstances, no interference is required by this
Court. Accordingly, the instant Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed
.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 24, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…