The court dismissed the writ petition regarding encroachment on land recorded under the Lucknow Development Authority, holding that the dispute was between private individuals not made parties and that the petitioner had sufficient remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code or BNS.S.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 2350 of 2026
Ghanshyam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Vice Chairman Lucknow Development Authority Gomti Nagar Lko. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
| Counsel for Petitioner(s) | : Mahesh |
Chandra Shukla |
|---|---|---|
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : Ratnesh Chauhan |
Chandra, C.S.C., Shailendra Singh |
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Sri Avnish Kumar, Advocate, has filed a vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Sri Shashwat Dwivedi, Advocate, has filed a vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3, and the same are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri M.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State–respondent nos. 4 to 7, Sri Avnish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shashwat Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present case is with regard to the encroachment on the public drain situated at Gata No.1144, area 0.3100 hectare, situated at Village Qila Mohammadi Nagar, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, which is recorded as abadi and naveen parti. However, the perusal of the khatoni annexed by the petitioner indicates that Gata No. 1144 is recorded in the name of the Lucknow Development Authority.
4. Apart from the above, the allegations in the present case, as stated in paragraph no. 4, are that the said land has been encroached upon by some private individuals whose cattle are tied on the said land.
5. Be that as it may, we find that the dispute in the present case is between private individuals who have not even been made parties in the present writ petition.
6. In regard to the aforesaid allegations, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute raised by the petitioner in the present petition is not amenable
WRIC No. 2350 of 2026
2
to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in case the said land is a public land or a public drain, the petitioner has sufficient remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code or under the provisions of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere and exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed .
March 10, 2026 Ashish Dewal
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)
Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a dispute between private individuals regarding land encroachment is amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 when adequate alternative remedies exist.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ghanshyam
Vice Chairman Lucknow Development Authority Gomti Nagar Lko.
And 6 Others
Alok Mathur
Amitabh Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
