Disposed¶20

Brahmdev Upadhayay v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026WPIL/989/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy; Section 67 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006; PIL disposed of; encroachment over Garahi land; Gata No. 152; Village Pipra Mishra; Tehsil Bansi; District Siddharth Nagar; mandamus; Amaruddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P.; Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. 2023 (12) ADJ 226; Arun Kumar, J.; decided April 20, 2026; WPIL No. 989 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief on merits; writ petition disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy, with the direction that any application moved by the petitioner under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before the appropriate authority shall be decided after hearing all concerned parties, in accordance with law. ¶20

Brahmdev Upadhayay vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus for removal of alleged encroachment over Gata No. 152 (recorded as Garahi) is maintainable, given the petitioner's alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

¶18

Court's answer

The petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the appropriate authority by moving an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006; consequently, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

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

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation (Allahabad High Court, Arun Kumar, J.) seeking a writ of mandamus for removal of alleged illegal encroachment by respondent no. 6 (Vijay Giri) and respondent no. 7 (Tokhai) over Gata No. 152 (area 0.1330 hectare and 0.74 hectare), recorded in revenue records as Garahi, Village Pipra Mishra, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar. Held: the petitioner has an alternative remedy of moving an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, in view of the Division Bench decision in Amaruddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others (PIL No.655 of 2026, decided 18.03.2026), upholding the Coordinate Bench decision in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P., 2023 (12) ADJ 226. The Court declined to entertain the petition and disposed of it, directing that any application under Section 67 be decided after hearing all concerned parties, in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 989 of 2026

¶3

Brahmdev Upadhayay

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 6 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: In Person
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶7

Court No. - 55

¶8

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5.

¶10

2. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶11

"i) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus to the respondent nos 2, 3 and 4 for removal of illegal encroachment on the Gata No. 152 क area 0.1330 Hectare and Gata no 152 area 0.74 hectare which is recorded in Revenue record as Garahi ( गड़ही / जल मग्न भूिम), by respondent No. 6 i.e. Vijay Giri and respondent No 7 i.e. Tokhai. Both are resident of, Village-Pipra Mishra, Post-Mithwal, Tehsil- Bansi, District- Siddharth Nagar.

¶12

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 to remove the illegal possession of respondent no 6 and 7 over the Gata No. 152 क area 0.1330 Hectare and Gata no 152 area 0.74 hectare which is recorded in Revenue record as Garahi ( गड़ही जल मग्न भूिम) and reinstate the Garhi in its original form."

¶13

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

¶14

WPIL No. 989 of 2026

¶15

¶16

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ

¶17

226 .

¶18

Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition.

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

April 20, 2026

Anil

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

Brahmdev Upadhayay v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmdev Upadhayay 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

Tulsi Das Vs D.D.C.and Others

Gita Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Keshav Prashad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gita vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Kunwar Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Surendra and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others