Santosh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Santosh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner no.1 relegated to statutory remedy under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, with an express direction that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the conclusion of those proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Form-20 notice issued under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code for alleged encroachment upon Gata No.381 (Gaon Sabha land) is illegal and arbitrary and should be set aside, given that the petitioners claim descent from the recorded tenure holders of adjoining Gata No.389 and assert they are not in possession of Gata No.381; or whether the petitioners should instead pursue the statutory remedy.

Court's answer

This Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; accordingly, petitioner no.1 is relegated to his statutory remedy under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners would have adequate opportunity to submit their reply before the Tehsildar, who shall consider and decide the objections, and thereafter the petitioners would also have a right to appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code; this availability of statutory remedies supports the decision not to entertain the writ petition.

Key takeaways

No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ-C No. 4035 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; decided April 29, 2026): Petitioners challenged a Form-20 notice issued under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, served after a Form-19 inquiry report by revenue officials, alleging petitioner no.1's encroachment upon Gaon Sabha land (Gata No.381, Village Lauwasingan Khera, Pargawan Maurawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao), described as a manure pit and as a talab (pond). Noting the Supreme Court's direction in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496, to evict persons occupying pond and other public utility land, and observing that the petitioners would have adequate opportunity to reply before the Tehsildar and a right of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relegated petitioner no.1 to the statutory remedy under Section 67, while directing that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners till the conclusion of those proceedings. The writ petition stands disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 4035 of 2026

Santosh Kumar And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 6 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bhushan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

Court No. - 5

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged Form-20, which has been issued in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, alleging that the petitioners have encroached upon Gata No.381, Village Lauwasingan Khera, Pargawan Maurawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao , which has been described as a manure pit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ancestors of the petitioners were the recorded tenure holders of the land bearing Gata No.389 and accordingly, submits that the impugned notice is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside inasmuch as the petitioners are not in possession of Gata No.381.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that an inquiry was conducted by the revenue officials and a report was submitted in Form-19. After due satisfaction, the competent authority served notice in Form-20 to the person against whom there are allegations of encroachment upon Gaon Sabha land. In the present case, after the report was submitted by the Revenue Authorities with regard to the encroachment, notice under Form-20 has been served upon the petitioner no.1 to show cause as to why he may not be evicted from the Gaon Sabha land and penalty be imposed for illegally occupying the said land. It has further been submitted that the petitioners would have adequate opportunity of hearing before the Tehsildar, where they can raise all the grounds as

WRIC No. 4035 of 2026

2

raised in the present petition.

Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the petitioner no.1 has been placed under notice for encroaching upon Gaon Sabha land, which is described as a talab (pond) . This Court is conscious of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi : (2001) 6 SCC 496 , wherein the State Government has been directed to evict all persons occupying pond and other public utility land. Even otherwise, the petitioners would have adequate opportunity to submit their reply before the Tehsildar, who shall consider and decide the said objections. Thereafter, the petitioners would also have a right to appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner no.1 is relegated to his statutory remedy under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

It is made clear that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

The writ petition stands disposed of .

April 29, 2026 Mahesh

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

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