Dismissed¶19

Kaushar Ali and Another v. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Sultanpur and 7 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2026WRIC/1532/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public road obstruction; encroachment by private respondents; incomplete Gram Panchayat Nidhi road (40 of 46 lathas constructed, about 6 lathas remaining); representations by petitioners and villagers; efficacious alternative remedy doctrine; Section 26 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 removal of obstruction, eviction/demolition, penalty by competent authority; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed; direction to decide Section 26 application expeditiously if filed within two weeks; Sultanpur; Kaushar Ali; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

In case there is any obstruction on a public road, any aggrieved person has an efficacious remedy under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of such obstruction. ¶15

Kaushar Ali and Another vs Distt. Magistrate… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the State respondents to construct the road after removing the illegal obstruction raised in the writ petition. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

In case there is any obstruction on a public road, any aggrieved person has an efficacious remedy under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of such obstruction.

¶15

Key takeaways

Under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the competent authority has full powers to pass orders for eviction/demolition and imposition of penalty.ratio¶15
Since the petitioners have an efficacious remedy under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, this Court was not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and subject to the aforesaid the writ petition stands dismissed.ratio¶19
If the petitioners move an application under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within the next two weeks, the competent authority shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 5 (Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ.), WRIT - C No. 1532 of 2026, decided April 6, 2026: Petitioners (Kaushar Ali and another) sought a direction to the State respondents to complete a Gram Panchayat Nidhi road (46 lathas approved, 40 constructed), the remaining about 6 lathas being unconstructed due to encroachment by private respondents, after representations by villagers failed. The Court held that in case of obstruction on a public road any aggrieved person has an efficacious remedy under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, wherein the competent authority has full powers to pass orders for eviction/demolition and imposition of penalty, and accordingly declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the writ petition stands dismissed. If an application under Section 26 is moved by the petitioners within two weeks, the competent authority shall consider and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1532 of 2026

¶3

Kaushar Ali And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Distt. Magistrate Distt. Sultanpur And 7 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 8.

¶12

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices to the private respondents are dispensed with.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that under the Gram Panchayat Nidhi, a road measuring 46 lathas was approved for construction under the aforesaid scheme. However, only 40 lathas of the public path has been constructed and about 6 lathas of the road remains unconstructed due to encroachment by the private respondents.

¶14

It has further been submitted that the said road is a main public pathway and several representations have been made by the petitioners and other villagers for removal of the obstruction and completion of the road. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is for issuance of a direction to the Staterespondents to construct the road after removing the illegal obstruction.

¶15

It is noticed that in case there is any obstruction on a public road, any aggrieved person has an efficacious remedy under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of such obstruction, wherein the competent authority has full powers to pass orders for eviction/demolition and imposition of penalty.

¶16

Accordingly, considering the fact that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, this Court is not

¶17

WRIC No. 1532 of 2026

¶18

¶19

inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶20

In case an application under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is moved by the petitioners within the next two weeks, the competent authority shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶21

April 6, 2026 Mahesh

¶22

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kaushar Ali and Another v. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Sultanpur and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushar Ali and Another v. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Sultanpur and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soni and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 4 Others vs No 692650 R Mwo (Hfo) Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Retd)

No. 13838612 Ex Sep Bhopal Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others

Shrimati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mansi Mishra vs Union of Indiathru. Secy. Ministry Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum New Delhi and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Yadav vs U.O.I. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others