Dismissed¶14

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2026WRIC/3407/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 3407 of 2026, decided 09.04.2026 by Jaspreet Singh, J. Petitioner Anil Kumar sought removal of alleged encroachment on public utility Rasta/Chak Marg by respondent nos. 2 to 5 (State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue). SDM Sultanpur's written instructions dated 06.04.2026 reported no obstruction found on inspection. Petition dismissed as involving a pure question of fact; liberty granted to pursue legal remedies; merits left unexamined. Keywords: encroachment, Chak Marg, public way, question of fact, alternative remedy, writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without examining merits; liberty left to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as may be available in law. ¶14

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3407 of 2026

Anil Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 5 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	Sachin Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction commanding the respondent nos. 2 to 5 for removal of encroachment on the public utility Rasta/Chak Marg.

¶11

The learned Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 06th April, 2026 under the signatures of the SDM, District Sultanpur, the same is taken on record indicating that upon inspection, no such obstruction of such nature was found.

¶12

Be that as it may, since the aforesaid issue is a pure question of fact, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for the aforesaid purpose leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse, as may be available to him in law.

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits, in case if takes to the appropriate proceedings, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits.

¶14

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed .

¶15

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶16

April 9, 2026 Asheesh

¶17

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

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sant Ravidas Evem Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Sewa Sasnthan Thru. Secy. Ram Kumar Gautam vs Nagar Palika Parishad Thru. Executice Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Gokaranath Kheri and 2 Others

Vikas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Dhiraj Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education, Lko. and 4 Others

Pankaj Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

C/M Mahatma Gandhi Inter College Thru. Manager Ahsan Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Nadeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others