Allahabad High Court

BHULLANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

A writ petition cannot be entertained where a specific statutory appeal and restoration remedy are available to the aggrieved party.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhullan, filed Writ Petition No. 17720 of 2026 in the Allahabad High Court challenging an order dated 16 May 2025 issued by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector (2nd) (Judicial) of Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad, under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner alleged that the order was passed ex-parte and sought relief through the writ. The respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and two others, contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal and a restoration application against the order. The Court examined the submissions and held that because a specific appeal and restoration remedy were available, the writ petition was not the appropriate forum. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the petition and disposed of it, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the alternative remedies. The certified copy of the order was to be returned to the petitioner’s counsel after retaining a photocopy.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy when an order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is alleged to be ex-parte?
Whether a writ petition can be entertained when an alternative statutory appeal and restoration application are available?

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

writ petition
ex-parte order
alternative remedy
Section 67
U.P. Revenue Code
appeal
restoration application
disposal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17720 of 2026

Bhullan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gulab Chandra Tiwari, Ramesh Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar 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 the order dated
16.05.2025, passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Collector (2nd) (Judicial), Tehsil
Loni, District Ghaziabad, under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order
impugned is ex-parte.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal as well as restoration
application against the order impugned.

5. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to
entertain the instant petition.

6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
avail the remedy as available to him under law.

7. 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.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…