Allahabad High Court

SURESH SINGH @ SURESH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Summary

The petitioner, Suresh Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash an eviction and damages order dated 18.02.2026 issued by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and also sought a mandamus directing the recovery of Rs. 18,000 in damages. The petitioner argued that the encroachment had been removed by him, rendering the damages order arbitrary, and contended that an appeal was not barred. The State, through its Additional Chief Standing Counsel, maintained that an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the same Code was available, rendering the writ petition inadmissible. The Court examined the record, noted that the order could indeed be challenged by appeal, and held that the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks, with liberty to seek condonation of delay, and ordered service of the judgment to the Land Management Committee counsel.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is available.
Whether the order of eviction and damages passed by the Tehsildar can be set aside by a writ of certiorari.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67, 67(5)

Subjects

writ petition
certiorari
mandamus
eviction
damages
Section 67
U.P. Revenue Code
alternative remedy
appeal
delay condonation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 29905 of 2026

Suresh Singh @ Suresh Kumar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Tiwari, Vinay Bhushan
Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the copy of
the instant petition to Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel
for the Land Management Committee concerned within one week.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C Srivastava,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Land
Management Committee.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

" I. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
18.02.2026 passed by Assistant Collector/Tehsildar
Sadar, Varanasi in Case No. 53215/2025 being
Computer Case No. T202514700153215 (Report Lekhpal
Vs Suresh Singh) and its consequential proceedings
whereby the eviction from the Arazi No. 616-area about
7.2 square meter situated at Village Harpalpur, Pargana
Dehat Amanat, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi, as well
as the recovery of damages for tune of Rs. 18,000/-
have been issued against the Petitioner.

II. Issue a writ order direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding/restraining to the respondent
authorities, to realize the damages of tune of Rs.
WRIC No. 29905 of 2026
2

18,000/-."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order for eviction
and damages has been passed by Tehsildar under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioner. He submitted that in
pursuance of the order passed by Tehsildar, the encroachment which
was found over the plot in question has been removed by the
petitioner himself, as such the order for damages which has been
passed in arbitrary manner against the petitioner should be set aside.
He submitted that since the construction of boundary wall made over
plot in question has already been removed by the petitioner, as such
alternative remedy of appeal will not be bar for the petitioner to
challenge the order of Tehsildar before this Court.

5. Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents submitted that alternative remedy of appeal is
available to the petitioner, as such writ petition cannot be entertained.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that order for eviction and
damages has been passed against the petitioner in respect to the plot
in question in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.

8. It is material to mention that order of Tehsildar passed under
Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 can be challenged in appeal
under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition
is finally disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file appeal under
Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before respondent no. 2-
Collector-Varanasi, District-Varanasi within a period of three weeks
from today along with prayer for condonation of delay. The Appellate
Court shall consider and decide the appeal expeditiously considering
the delay condonation application first taking liberal view on delay
condonation as delay is not inordinate.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall serve the copy of this
order also to Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
WRIC No. 29905 of 2026
3

Land Management Committee along with copy of writ petition. within
period of one week.

September 17, 2026
PS*
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…