Allahabad High Court
GYANESHWAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
The petitioner, Gyaneshwar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a judgment and order dated 18‑12‑2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The State’s standing counsel raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy – an appeal under Section 67(5) of the same Code. The Court examined whether the existence of this alternative remedy barred the writ petition. Finding that the petitioner indeed possessed a statutory avenue of appeal, the Court held the petition non‑maintainable. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with the Court directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal available under law. The order was signed on 7 May 2026 by Justice Manish Kumar Nigam.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67, 67(5)
Subjects
- Writ Petition
- Alternative Remedy
- Section 67
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Maintainability
- Civil Procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18008 of 2026
Gyaneshwar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepankar Chaudhary, Shivam Singh
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 challenging the judgment and order
dated 18.12.2025 & 18.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 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 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 7, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…