Disposed¶21

Parasuram v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WPIL/1192/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL maintainability; alternative remedy; Section 67 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006; encroachment public toilet primary school premises; Panchayat Bhawan Khalihan land; Araji 452 453 1556; Village Rahsujanovipatti; Tappa Khan; Pargana Sindhua Jobana; Tehsil Kasya; District Kushi Nagar; Gaon Sabha notice; mandamus; recovery from responsible authorities; Amaruddin Ansari PIL No. 655 of 2026 decided 18.03.2026; Kanhaiya Lal 2023 (12) ADJ 226; Allahabad High Court; Arun Kumar J.; petition disposed 06.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petition disposed of with liberty to move an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before the appropriate authority. ¶21

Parasuram Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1192 of 2026

¶3

Parasuram

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 6 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Janardan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

¶9

Court No. - 55

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Sri Sudhir Bharti, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha.

¶12

The present petition has been filed for the following relief(s):

¶13

"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to remove the encroachment/construction (Public toilet) from the premises of primary school from Araji No 452 and 453 recorded as primary school in revenue record and Panchyat Bhawan from the Araji No. 1556 recorded as Khalihan in revenue record all situated at Village Rahsujanovipatti, Tappa Khan, Pargana Sindhua Jobana, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushi Nagar and restore in original shape in the ends of justice.

¶14

(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to recover the amount from the responsible respondents / liable authority in the ends of justice."

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach appropriate authority by moving an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Amaruddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others , passed in

¶16

WPIL No. 1192 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.655 of 2026, decided on 18.03.2026, upholding the Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 226 .

¶19

Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition.

¶20

In case the petitioner moves an application under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate authority, the same shall be decided after hearing all the concerned parties in accordance with law.

¶21

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

¶22

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶23

May 6, 2026 Ashok Kr.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parasuram v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasuram v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mumtaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Data Prasad Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Panelal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shivbabu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Jitendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others