Allahabad High Court
RAM CHANDRA MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that because the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Sections 26 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, the writ petition could not be entertained.
Summary
The petitioners, represented by Ajai Kumar and Ravindra Pratap Singh, filed a PIL seeking a direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to remove illegal encroachments on Plot No. 436, recorded as Chak Road in Village Bairiparwan, District Bhadohi. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have 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 Vs State of U.P. (PIL No.655 of 2026) and Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. (2023 (12) ADJ 226), which upheld the principle that a writ petition cannot be entertained when a specific statutory remedy is available. Consequently, the court held that it was not inclined to entertain the petition. The court directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate revenue authority under the cited sections, where the matter would be decided after hearing all parties. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for seeking removal of illegal encroachment when a specific statutory remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code is available?
- Does the existence of an alternative remedy under Sections 26/67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code preclude the High Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution?
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
- Dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3868 of 2025
Ram Chandra Maurya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 12 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajai Kumar, Ravindra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of petitioner is
taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State. Sri Pradeep Singh has accepted notice on behalf
of Gaon Sabha.
3. The present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent
nos.2 and 3 to remove illegal encroachment made by respondent nos.5 to
13 over Plot No.436 area 0.0440 hectare, recorded as Chak Road in the
revenue records, situated in Village Bairiparwan, Tehsil Gyanpur, District
Bhadohi.
4. 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.
5. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined
to entertain the instant petition.
WPIL No. 3868 of 2025
2
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 15, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…