Allahabad High Court
JAY PRATAP RAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Sections 26/67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code bars the petition from being entertained.
Summary
Petitioner Jay Pratap Ram filed a PIL seeking a mandamus directing certain respondents to remove encroachments on Gaon Sabha land (Gata no.278). The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Sections 26 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Court referred to its earlier decisions in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P., which held that where a specific statutory remedy exists, a writ petition cannot be entertained. Consequently, the Court declined to hear the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate revenue authority. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without any order of mandamus.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has a viable alternative remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, precluding the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 26, 67
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Mandamus
- Land Encroachment
- Alternative Remedy
- Revenue Law
- Uttar Pradesh
- Writ Petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2353 of 2026
Jay Pratap Ram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Jeet Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State. Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Advocate, has
accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"I) Issue an order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent
no.2 and 3 to remove the encroachment of respondent no. 6 to 9 over the Gaon Saba
land bearing Gata no.278 which is recorded as Chak Marg 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.
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
WPIL No. 2353 of 2026
2
accordance with law.
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
Checking your session…