Allahabad High Court
BRAHMDEV UPADHAYAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 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
Brahmdev Upadhayay filed a public interest litigation seeking mandamus against certain officials to remove illegal encroachments on garhi (water‑logged) land in Siddharth Nagar. The petition alleged that two individuals had occupied the land and asked the court to order its restoration. The respondents argued that the petitioner could obtain relief by filing an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. Citing the earlier judgment in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and the Kanhaiya Lal decision, the court held that an alternative statutory remedy was available and therefore the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the petition was disposed without granting any writ.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 is available.
- Whether the court can issue a mandamus directing removal of illegal encroachment on garhi land.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Mandamus
- Illegal Encroachment
- Garhi Land
- Alternative Remedy
- Revenue Law
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 989 of 2026
Brahmdev Upadhayay
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person, and learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta has
accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus to the respondent nos
2, 3 and 4 for removal of illegal encroachment on the Gata No. 152क area 0.1330
Hectare and Gata no 152 area 0.74 hectare which is recorded in Revenue record as
Garahi (गड़ही / जल मग्न भूमि), by respondent No. 6 i.e. Vijay Giri and respondent No 7
i.e. Tokhai. Both are resident of, Village-Pipra Mishra, Post-Mithwal, Tehsil- Bansi,
District- Siddharth Nagar.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent
No.3 and 4 to remove the illegal possession of respondent no 6 and 7 over the Gata
No. 152क area 0.1330 Hectare and Gata no 152 area 0.74 hectare which is recorded
in Revenue record as Garahi (गड़ही जल मग्न भूमि) and reinstate the Garhi in its original
form."
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
WPIL No. 989 of 2026
2
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 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.)
April 20, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…