Allahabad High Court
ANILversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternative remedy under law.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash an order dated 16/05/2025 passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petition alleged that the order was illegal and sought its setting aside. The respondents, the State of U.P. and two others, contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal or a restoration application against the order. The learned Standing Counsel raised this preliminary objection, and the Court held that because an alternative statutory remedy was available, the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate appeal or restoration remedy. No substantive merits of the impugned order were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal or restoration.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- certiorari
- alternative remedy
- U.P. Revenue Code
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17849 of 2026
Anil
.....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 with the following prayer:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 16/05/2025 passed by Tehsildar/ Assistant
Collector (2nd) (Judicial), Tehsil: Loni, District: Ghaziabad in Case No.
800 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T202511280300800) under section
67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."
3. 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.
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…