Allahabad High Court
ANAND KUMAR SAINIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal, and therefore the writ petition cannot be entertained.
Summary
The petitioner, Anand Kumar Saini, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a certiorari to quash an order dated 18‑09‑2025 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code‑2006. The order concerned a revenue case (Case No. 11404 of 2025). The State’s Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order. The learned Judge held that because an alternative statutory remedy was available, the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appeal. No substantive merits of the order were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- alternative remedy
- preliminary objection
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 24
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 19300 of 2026
Anand Kumar Saini
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashank Singhal, Subodh Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
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:
"to issue a writ, order or writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned
order dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by
the Respondent No. 3/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarabad,
Bulandshahr in Case No. 11404 of 2025, Computerized Case No.
T202511170411404 (Anand Kumar Saini Vs. Ajay Saini and others), filed
by the petitioner, U/s 24 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 appeal 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 18, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…