Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RANDHEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is disposed of as the pending revenue proceedings are expected to resolve the encroachment matter.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove an alleged illegal encroachment on Arazi No. 249, Mauza Donwar, recorded as a road in the revenue records. The petitioner relied on RC Forms 19 & 20 issued under Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, and a case registered under Section 67(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which is still pending. The respondents argued that appropriate proceedings have already been initiated against the encroacher and that the matter will be decided within the time frame prescribed by Rule 67(6) of the Rules. The Court examined whether it could issue mandamus while the statutory process was ongoing. Concluding that the pending proceedings are the proper forum for resolution, the Court disposed of the writ petition without granting the relief sought.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct removal of an encroachment when a proceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code is pending.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • public interest litigation
  • mandamus
  • illegal encroachment
  • revenue law
  • Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
  • writ petition
  • land removal

Judgment

                                                     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                                                   PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2325 of 2026

                                    Randheer Singh
                                                                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                             Versus
                                    State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                                                          .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                   :   Dhiraj Srivastava, Pradeep Kumar
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

                                    Court No. - 51
                                                                HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

                                    1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
                                    respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Sudhir Bharti on behalf of respondent no. 4.

                                    2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:-

                                    "i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
                                    respondents authority to remove the illegal encroachment over the Arazi No. 249
                                    Mauza Donwar (Unval) Tahsil Bansgaon District-Gorakhpur recorded as Rasta
                                    in Revenue Record within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

                                    3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the complaint made
                                    by him, R.C. Forms 19 & 20, as contemplated under Rule 67 of the U.P. Revenue
                                    Code Rules, 2016 have been issued to the respondent no. 5 and Case No.
                                    T202603310109481 has been registered under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue
                                    Code, 2006, which is pending consideration.

                                    4. In view of the aforesaid, as appropriate proceedings have been initiated against the
                                    encroacher, it is expected that it shall be concluded in accordance with law within the
                                    period prescribed under Rule 67(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

                                    5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.




                                                                                                        (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Ranjeet Sahu




Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.