Allahabad High Court
MAHENDRA PRATAP RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2‑5 to act against respondent 6 for an alleged illegal encroachment on a 386‑hectare plot in Azamgarh. The court noted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, as recognized in earlier judgments of this court. Relying on Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. (2017) and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. (2023), the judge held that the petition could not be entertained when a specific remedy is available. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the matter was left to be pursued before the appropriate revenue authority. The court directed that any application under Section 67 be decided after hearing all parties in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can obtain relief through a writ of mandamus despite the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- mandamus
- alternative remedy
- illegal encroachment
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Section 67
- writ petition
- disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 14589 of 2026
Mahendra Pratap Rai
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avadhesh Singh, Sri Ram
Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad
Shukla
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent No. 2 to 5 to take necessary action
against the respondent No. 6 according to law regarding the
illegal encroachment made by respondent no. 6 over the plot
No. 937 area 386 hectare situate in Village Reeva
(Babhangawan), Pargana and Tehsil-Nizamabad, District-
Azamgarh."
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection
that the 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 judgment
passed by this Court in Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. reported in
2017(4) ADJ 619 as well as in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 226.
4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not
inclined to entertain the instant petition.
WRIC No. 14589 of 2026
2
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. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.
April 20, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…