Allahabad High Court

ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 precludes the petition from being entertained.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public‑interest litigation seeking a court direction to remove an illegal encroachment on Plot No. 91‑Ka (0.3870 hectare) in Mauja Kharaujha, Chandauli. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, as affirmed in the Court’s earlier decisions in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. The Court held that because an alternative statutory remedy is available, it is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the said provision and disposed of the petition. The petition was therefore dismissed without merits being examined.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 to remove the encroachment.
Whether the High Court can entertain a PIL seeking removal of illegal encroachment when an alternative statutory remedy exists.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

public interest litigation
illegal encroachment
land dispute
alternative remedy
Section 67
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
writ petition
jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2303 of 2026

Arun Kumar Srivastava
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav
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 respondents State. Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, has
accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent
authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by encroachers over
Plot No.91-Ka area 0.3870 hectare, relating to Mauja Kharaujha, Tehsil
Chakiya, District Chandauli.

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, this Court is 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. 2303 of 2026
2

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…