Allahabad High Court
RANVEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 14 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
Ranveer Singh filed a PIL seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to take preventive measures to protect specific agricultural land in Padham village and to evict trespassers. The respondents, through their standing counsel, argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, citing the Court's earlier decision in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and the precedent of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. The High Court agreed that because an alternative statutory remedy is available, it would not entertain the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under Section 67 and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition for mandamus when an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, is available to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- mandamus
- alternative remedy
- land protection
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Section 67
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2350 of 2026
Ranveer Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 14 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Niren Kumar Upadhyay, Shiva Kant
Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, 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 Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Advocate, has
accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents no.2, 3 and 4 to take all preventive measure for protection of the
Daragah, Kheda, Charagah Plot no. 1282 Area 0.2020 + .0810 +3.3080+3.7280=
7.3190 Hec of village Padham (Mustaphabad) Tehsil Jasrana District Firozabad and
also get the trespassers evicted from over then land of the aforesaid Daragah, Kheda
Charagah and recover then damage from them for their illegal occupation of the
aforesaid Daragah, Kheda Charagah."
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
WPIL No. 2350 of 2026
2
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.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 30, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…