Disposed¶17

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Yadav v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026WPIL/1213/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL; Allahabad High Court; Arun Kumar, J.; Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 others; encroachment; public utility land; mandamus; Gata No. 621, 646, 665, 693; Village Mahua Kheda; Tehsil Agra; District Agra; Gaon Sabha; alternative remedy; Section 67 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006; Amaruddin Ansari PIL No. 655 of 2026; Kanhaiya Lal 2023 (12) ADJ 226; petition disposed of; May 7, 2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on merits; petition disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy, with the direction that any application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 shall be decided after hearing all concerned parties in accordance with law. ¶17

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs State of Up and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1213 of 2026

¶3

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Up And 5 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rajesh Yadav, Viresh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 55

¶8

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the concerned respondents to remove the illegal encroachment made by Respondent No.5 from Gata No. 621 (area 0.0900 recorded as Mukh Marg), Gata No. 646 (area 0.2300 recorded as Rasta), Gata No. 665 (area 0.0670 recorded as Nali), and Gata No. 693 (area 0.0200 recorded as Chakmarg) in revenue record, situated in VillageMahua Kheda, Tehsil Agra, District Agra, being public utility land."

¶12

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 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 .

¶13

WPIL No. 1213 of 2026

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

May 7, 2026

Ashok Kr.

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

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Yadav v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Yadav v. State of Up and 5 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shivbabu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Amir Suhel vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Roop Singh Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

Ramvriksha Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Daya Shanker Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others