Allahabad High Court
OM PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26‑10‑2023 passed by respondent No.3 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) and a restoration application under Section 209(h) of the same Code. The Court examined whether the existence of such alternative remedies barred the writ petition. Relying on the principle that a petition cannot be entertained when a specific statutory remedy is available, the Court declined to consider the writ. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies. The order was dated 7 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained when the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 67(5) and Section 209(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 209(h), 67, 67(5)
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- Section 67
- Section 209
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- preliminary objection
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18034 of 2026
Om Prakash
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. 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 by respondent no. 3 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 as well as restoration application
under Section 209(h) of the U.P. 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…