Pradeep Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State and Sri Rajan Chauhan, holding brief of Sri Azad Rai for the 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 to respondents no.3 & 4 to remove the constructions of houses being raised by the private respondents over the land being Khata No.678 and 680 measuring area 0.0490 hectare recorded as Naveen Parti in the Revenue Records and Banjar Khata No.666 measuring area 0.0490 hectare situated in Village Bhulendra, Tehsil Handia, P.S. Saraymamrej District Prayagraj is also recorded as Navin Parti in the Revenue Records, belonging to the respondent no. 5." 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 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. (Arun Kumar,J.) May 6, 2026 Anil