Allahabad High Court
RAMESH SINGH @ RAMESHCHANDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
A writ petition is not maintainable if the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy, such as a second appeal, to challenge the order.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the first appellate court in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The respondents, the State of U.P. and others, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a second appeal against that order. The High Court examined the objection and held that because an alternative statutory remedy existed, the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the available second appeal. No substantive merits of the original order were addressed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an alternative remedy of a second appeal is available under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 116
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- second appeal
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 116
- High Court of Allahabad
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 14624 of 2026
Ramesh Singh @ Rameshchand
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Kumar, Sanjay Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Standing Counsel for State-
respondents and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
first appellate court in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing second appeal against the order
of first appellate court.
4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to
entertain the instant petition.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
avail the remedy as available to him under law.
6. Certified copy of the orders, if any, be returned to learned counsel for the
petitioner after retaining photo copy of the same.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
April 20, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…