Dismissed¶14

Mohd. Aslam Ansari v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WPIL/659/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed as abuse of the process of law; maintainability of writ petition; alternative efficacious remedy — execution case under Paragraph 460(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Manual after finalization of proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; alleged encroachment by respondents no. 4 to 8 over Arazi No. 462/1, Mohalla Mahrupur, Tehsil Muhammadabad Gohna, District Mau; dismissal without prejudice to available remedy; Division Bench (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.), Allahabad High Court, March 18, 2026.

What did the court decide?

There is an efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, which can be utilized to bring finality to the proceedings. ¶10

Mohd. Aslam Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 659 of 2026

¶3

Mohd. Aslam Ansari

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava, Raj Deepak Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Atul Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.
Court No.- 21

¶6

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9.

¶8

The instant writ petition is preferred as public interest litigation for a direction commanding the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment made by respondents no. 4 to 8 over Arazi No. 462/1 and 462/1 admeasuring 0584 hectare situated at Mohalla Mahrupur, Tehsil Muhammadabad Gohna, District Mau.

¶9

At the outset, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has raised objection for maintainability of the instant public interest litigation on the ground that the proceeding has been finalized under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and submits that in case, the order is passed under the said provisions the appropriate remedy is to press the execution case under Paragraph 460(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Manual. The public interest litigation is preferred for the enforcement of a proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, which is not maintainable and is an abuse of the process of law.

¶10

Under the facts and circumstances, we find that there is an efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, which can be utilized to bring finality to the proceedings. The Public Interest Litigation is an abuse of the

¶11

WPIL No. 659 of 2026

¶12

¶13

process of law. However, the dismissal of the case would not come in the way to avail the remedy, as available under law.

¶14