Allahabad High Court

RAM LALANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that the existence of an alternative remedy under Sections 26/67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code bars the writ jurisdiction.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a court order to remove an illegal encroachment on Plot No.395 (Chakroad) in Village Bhojpurava, Prayagraj. The respondents 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 Division Bench decision in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. (PIL No.655 of 2026) and the earlier coordinate bench ruling in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. (2023 ADJ 226). The Court held that because an alternative statutory remedy is available, it would 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 petition was therefore dismissed without merits.

Issues considered

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

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 26, 67

Subjects

public interest litigation
illegal encroachment
alternative remedy
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
writ petition
jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2351 of 2026

Ram Lalan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nand Lal Singh, Pankaj Kushwaha
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 a direction to the respondent
authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by encroachers over
Plot No.395, recorded as Chakroad in the revenue records, relating to
Village Bhojpurava, Shyam Nagar, Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj.

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.

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.
WPIL No. 2351 of 2026
2

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
October 1, 2026
Anil

Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…