Allahabad High Court
RAVI CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is barred because the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Chandra, filed a writ petition seeking an interim mandamus directing the State respondents to demolish an alleged illegal encroachment of about 7 Bigha 6 Biswa by respondent no.6, invoking Sections 67(2) and 67(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The State's standing counsel raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the same Code, citing the Court's earlier decisions in Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. The Court examined whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred the writ petition. Relying on the precedent that a petition cannot be entertained when an alternative remedy is available, the Court held that it would not entertain the petition. The Court directed that if the petitioner proceeds with an application under Section 67 before the appropriate authority, it should be decided after hearing all parties. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without further order.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 that bars the writ petition.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition seeking mandamus when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67(2), 67(6)
Subjects
- mandamus
- alternative remedy
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- encroachment
- writ jurisdiction
- preliminary objection
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17986 of 2026
Ravi Chandra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"issue as interim mandamus commanding the respondent
no.1 to 5 to remove/demolish the illegal occupation
encroachment of respondent no.6 over Gata No.585 area
about 7 Bigha 6 Biswa forthwith, by initiating legal
proceeding under section 67(2),67(6) by personally
appearing respondent no.1 to 4 before this Hon'ble Court by
passing appropriate order a writing within 15 days."
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
inclined to entertain the instant petition.
WRIC No. 17986 of 2026
2
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.
May 7, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…