Allahabad High Court
BABLOOversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is dismissed as non‑maintainable because an alternative remedy under Section 67(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 is available to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Babloo, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26-10-2023 passed under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The State, represented by its standing counsel, argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy—specifically, filing a restoration application or an appeal under Section 67(5) of the same code. The court examined this preliminary objection and concluded that because an alternative statutory remedy exists, the writ petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the petition and ordered its disposal, while allowing the petitioner to pursue the available remedy under the law. The order was signed on 6 May 2026 by Justice Manish Kumar Nigam.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging an order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the same statute.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67, 67(5)
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- Section 67
- U.P. Revenue Code
- preliminary objection
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17846 of 2026
Babloo
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Radheshyam Yadav, Surendra Kumar
Verma
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, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2023
passed in proceeding under Section 67 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 restoration application as well
as an appeal under Section 67(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
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.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…