Disposed¶15

Ravi Chandra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026WRIC/17986/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy; Section 67 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006; encroachment over Gata No.585 (7 Bigha 6 Biswa); interim mandamus; writ petition disposed of; Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. 2017(4) ADJ 619; Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. 2023 (12) ADJ 226; Allahabad High Court; Writ-C 17986 of 2026; Manish Kumar Nigam, J.; decision dated May 7, 2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition disposed of with the observation 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. ¶15

Ravi Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking removal/demolition of the alleged encroachment by respondent no.6 over Gata No.585 should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

¶11

Court's answer

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition because the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the appropriate authority by moving an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

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

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.), Writ-C No. 17986 of 2026, decided May 7, 2026: The petitioner sought interim mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to remove/demolish the alleged illegal occupation/encroachment by respondent no.6 over Gata No.585 (area about 7 Bigha 6 Biswa) by initiating legal proceeding under section 67(2), 67(6). Upholding the preliminary objection of the learned Standing Counsel, and relying on Jahar Singh v. State of U.P., 2017(4) ADJ 619, and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 (12) ADJ 226, the Court held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of moving an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before the appropriate authority, and was therefore not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition was disposed of with the observation that any such application shall be decided after hearing all the concerned parties in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 17986 of 2026

¶3

Ravi Chandra

¶4

		.....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 5 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Lal Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.

¶5

Court No. - 36

¶6

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶9

"issue as interim mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to 5 to remove/demolish the illegal occupation encroachment of respondent no.6 over Gata No.585 area about 7 Bigha 6 Biswa forthwith, by initiating legal proceeding under section 67(2),67(6) by personally appearing respondent no.1 to 4 before this Hon'ble Court by passing appropriate order a writing within 15 days."

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the 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 judgment passed by this Court in Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2017(4) ADJ 619 as well as in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 226.

¶11

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

¶12

WRIC No. 17986 of 2026

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of .

¶16

May 7, 2026 Ved Prakash

¶17

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Chandra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Chandra v. State of U.P. 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

Smt. Durgawati Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Lalta Prasad Pandey Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 17 Others

Suresh Chandra Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramratan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Naresh Bal Bhatnagar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bachcheram @ Bachchelal Yadav vs State of U.P. and 6 Others