Allahabad High Court
SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing objections to the notice.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Gupta, filed a writ petition (Writ‑C No. 16383 of 2026) challenging a notice issued to him in proceedings under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The petition sought relief on the ground that the notice was unlawful. The respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and others, through the Standing Counsel, contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy – namely, to file objections to the notice, including objections to the maintainability of the proceedings. The learned High Court judge considered this preliminary objection and held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred the writ petition. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the petition. The petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file objections to the notice, which will be decided in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code is maintainable when an alternative remedy of filing objections to the notice is available?
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 128
Subjects
- writ petition
- Section 128
- U.P. Revenue Code
- alternative remedy
- maintainability
- notice
- disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16383 of 2026
Santosh Kumar Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajendra Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh
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 a notice issued to the
petitioner in proceedings under Section 128 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 objection to the notice
including the objection regarding maintainability of the proceedings.
4. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
file objections to the notice and in case, the petitioner files objections, the
same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…