Allahabad High Court

SATYENDRA ALIAS SATYENDRA CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

A writ petition seeking mandamus to remove encroachments on public land is not maintainable where the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

Summary

The petitioner, Satyendra Chauhan, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing certain respondents to remove alleged illegal encroachments on several parcels of public land in Ghazipur district. The respondents contested the petition, and the Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Court examined prior decisions in Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. (2017(4) ADJ 619) and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and others (2023 (12) ADJ 226), which held that such matters must be pursued through the revenue authority. Relying on these precedents, the Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable because the alternative remedy was available. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the Revenue Code. The decision underscores the principle that courts will not entertain writ petitions when a specific statutory remedy exists.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 is available.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

public land
encroachment
mandamus
alternative remedy
Section 67
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
writ petition
jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 15267 of 2026

Satyendra Alias Satyendra Chauhan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 12 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,
C.S.C.

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 the nature of
MANDAMUS to direct the respondent No.2, 3 and 4 to
remove the illegal encroachment from the public land
bearing Araji No.165, Area 0.1140 hectare, Araji No.163,
Area 0.0740 hectare, Araji No.168 Area 0.410 hectare, Araji
No.95 Area 0.0310 hectare, Araji No.98 Area 0.410,
registered as public property in revenue record situated at
Village Makhdumpur Tehsil Jakhania, District Ghazipur
encroached by Respondents No.6 to 13."

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
WRIC No. 15267 of 2026
2

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. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.

April 23, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…