Writ petition seeking mandamus for removal of construction material dumped on a public road and restraint of encroachment by private respondents was dismissed as the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35772
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5838 of 2025
Petitioner :- Ram Sharan Shukla @ Ram Subhash Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mrs.Suniti
Sachan,Gangeshwar Pandey,Sidhant Rathour Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Sidhant Rathour, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Bux Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.4 and 5 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi and Station House Officer, Police Station Sursa, District Hardoi to remove the construction material dump over public road. The prayer clause does not make any mention of any particulars from which the road can be identified. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus against private respondents No.6 and 7 for restraining them from making illegal encroachment over the public road. Some photographs annexed as annexure No.2 to the writ petition indicate a small quantity of cement mixture being prepared at some public
place. Some more photographs have been annexed with the writ petition, which indicate some soil being put at a place, but the place cannot be identified from the photographs.
3. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy by filing an application before the Tehsildar, under Section 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
4. In view of availability of statutory remedy to the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to entertain the writ petition.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]
Order Date :- 18.6.2025 cks/-
Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Should the Court direct removal of construction material dumped on a public road and restrain encroachment when an alternative statutory remedy exists?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Sharan Shukla @ Ram Subhash Shukla
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Superintendent of Police, Hardoi
Station House Officer, Police Station Sursa, District Hardoi
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
