Allahabad High Court
RAMESH CHANDRA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The petition cannot be entertained as the petitioners have not filed the required application under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006; they must pursue the statutory remedy.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State to demarcate specific land plots in Bareilly district. They claimed the court had previously ordered the Tehsildar to act, but no demarcation had occurred. The State contended that the petitioners had not filed the requisite application for demarcation under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and therefore the writ could not be entertained. The Court held that the statutory procedure must be followed and the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the petition was disposed with liberty to the petitioners to initiate the proper proceeding under the Revenue Code.
Issues considered
- Can a writ petition under Article 226 be entertained for land demarcation when the statutory remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 has not been pursued?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land demarcation
- mandamus
- Article 226
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- statutory remedy
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 33786 of 2026
Ramesh Chandra And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamla Prasad Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Kamla Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-
respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing the respondents to demarcate the gata nos. 426/1,
426/2, 426/3 and 426/4, situated in vilalge Biharaman Nagla,
Chhoti Bihar, District Bareilly."
3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted this Court has passed an
order, directing the Tehsildar to do the needful in the matter but till
date proper demarcation has not been made at the spot. He further
submitted that petitioners have filed an application for proper
demarcation of the plot in question but no steps have been taken by
the authorities.
4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the State
submitted that proper application for demarcation as provided under
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has not been filed by the petitioners
before the authority concerned, as such, the writ petition cannot be
entertained.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records.
6. The prayer made in the instant writ petition cannot be entertained
WRIC No. 33786 of 2026
2
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
7. Under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provision has made for
demarcation as such misc. application or representation for
demarcation cannot be entertained.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant
writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to initiate
proper proceeding as available under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
before the authority concerned, in accordance with law.
September 23, 2026
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…