Allahabad High Court
SITARAM JAISWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
A PIL under Article 226 seeking removal of encroachment on Usar land is meritless; the remedy lies in filing an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
The petition filed by Sitaram Jaiswal sought a writ directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to remove alleged illegal encroachments on several parcels of land recorded as Usar in the revenue records of Molwa Kala village, Prayagraj. The petitioner relied on a public‑interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging misuse of public property. The Court observed that the grievance is specifically covered by Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which provides a remedial mechanism before the revenue authorities. Referring to the Division Bench decision in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. (PIL No. 655 of 2026), the Court held that the revenue authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of public land and that a PIL in this context is an abuse of process. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was permitted to file an application under Section 67 before the appropriate authority. Any such application, if filed, will be decided in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether a public‑interest litigation under Article 226 is maintainable to seek removal of illegal encroachment on Usar land
- Whether the petitioner has a remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- illegal encroachment
- Usar land
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Section 67
- Article 226
- abuse of process
- revenue law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 44 of 2026
Sitaram Jaiswal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C., Rakesh Kumar
Yadav, Ram Brij Napit
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents State. Sri Azad Rai, Advocate has accepted notice on
behalf of respondent - Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent
Authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by respondent nos.5
to 9 over Plot Nos.8 area 0.0740 hectare, 9 area 0.800 hectare, 20M area
0.4100 hectare, 22 area 0.3880 hectare and 95 area 0.3570 hectare,
recorded as Usar in the relevant revenue records, relating to Village
Molwa Kala, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj.
3. By the previous order of this Court, instructions were called in the
matter from the learned Standing Counsel, but the same could not be
received.
4. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the present petition, it is
evident that the petitioner has a remedy for redressal of his grievance
under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Division
Bench 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, has held that the authorities under the Revenue
Code have inherent jurisdiction to prevent the misuse of public property
and a public interest litigation petition before this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is meritless and an abuse of process of law.
WPIL No. 44 of 2026
2
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 67 of the
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate authority. If any
such application is filed by the petitioner, it shall be considered and
decided, in accordance with law.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 7, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…