Allahabad High Court
RAJPATI GAUR ALIAS RAJPATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 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 issuance of a writ of mandamus and the petition must be dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Rajpati Gaur filed a PIL seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to remove encroachments and illegal constructions on a pathway recorded as "Banjar" in the revenue records of Village Bagdaha Hawasabad. The respondents' standing counsel raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Sections 26 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, citing the Court's earlier decisions in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. (PIL No.655 of 2026) and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. (2023 (12) ADJ 226). The Court held that because an alternative statutory remedy is available, it could not entertain the writ petition. It directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate revenue authority under the cited sections and disposed of the writ petition. The decision underscores the principle that courts will not entertain writ applications when a competent alternative remedy exists under the relevant statute.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when an alternative remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, is available.
- Whether the petitioner has exhausted or is required to exhaust the statutory remedy before approaching the High Court.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 26, 67
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Mandamus
- Encroachment
- Alternative Remedy
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Revenue Law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2297 of 2026
Rajpati Gaur Alias Rajpati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamlesh Shrama
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 respondents State. Sri Azad Rai, Advocate, has accepted notice on
behalf of Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
") Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent
no.2, 3 and 4 to remove the encroachment and illegal construction made by
respondent no.5 to 9 over the pathway/Kharanja which is made upon the Araji No.
364 area 0.7760 hectare situated at Village Bagdaha Hawasabad, Post Ugrasenpur
Tehsil Handia District-Prayagraj/Allahabad recorded as "Banjar" in the revenue
record."
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.
WPIL No. 2297 of 2026
2
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.
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…