Allahabad High Court

WPIL/2393/2026 of AMARENDRA SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 9 OTHERS on 6 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2393 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State. Sri Azad Rai, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha. 2. The

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2393 of 2026

Court No. - 51

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State. Sri Azad Rai, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "i-issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to evict the respondent no. 7 to 10 from Gram Sabha Lands which are recorded as Gata no. 500, 501, 502, 497, 496, 65 situated at Village Udahin Khurd, Pargana Koda, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi which have been illegally encroached by them."

3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that 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 Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Amaruddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.655 of 2026, decided on 18.03.2026, upholding the Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ

226.

4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition.

5. In case, the petitioner moves an application under Section 67 of Uttar Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C. Amarendra Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s)

Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate authority, the same shall be decided after hearing all the concerned parties, in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. October 7, 2026 Anil WPIL No. 2393 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead