The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that Public Interest Litigations seeking enforcement of land revenue remedies must not bypass statutory mechanisms. In a significant ruling, the Court dismissed a PIL for encroachment removal, holding that the petitioner’s grievance is fully addressable under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, making the invocation of Article 226 an abuse of process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the removal of illegal encroachments on government land in two villages in District Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. The encroachments allegedly affect plot nos. 490, 491, and 492 in Village Lawaniya, and plot nos. 1, 2, and 3 in Village Bharpatiya, all of which are classified as public land under the revenue records.
Key Facts
- The encroachments have reportedly been ongoing for several years, with structures erected without any lawful authority
- The petitioner, Ramanarayan, is a resident of the region and claims to have no personal interest but seeks redressal on behalf of the public
- No specific date of initial complaint or notice to revenue authorities is mentioned in the petition
- The petitioner did not file any application under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, prior to approaching the High Court
Procedural History
- 2025: Public Interest Litigation No. 2950 of 2025 filed before the Allahabad High Court
- 22.09.2025: Court issued directions to the Standing Counsel for the State to submit a report on the status of encroachments and actions taken
- The report was not filed by the deadline, and no response was received from the revenue authorities
- 28.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government, District Magistrate, Tehsildar, and Gaon Sabha to remove all encroachments from the specified plots and restore the land to public use.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an adequate statutory remedy exists under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, specifically Sections 26 and 67.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Santoosh Kumar Dwivedi, argued that the encroachments on public land constituted a violation of public trust and that the failure of revenue authorities to act necessitated judicial intervention under Article 226. He contended that the scale of encroachment and the public nature of the land justified the invocation of writ jurisdiction.
For the Respondent
The Standing Counsel for the State and Advocate Sudhir Bharti, appearing for the Gaon Sabha, submitted that the petitioner had not exhausted statutory remedies under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. They relied on the precedent set by the Division Bench in Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P., which held that the Revenue Code provides a comprehensive mechanism for dealing with encroachments and misuse of public property, and that writ petitions under Article 226 are not a substitute for such remedies.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the relief sought and the availability of statutory remedies. It noted that Sections 26 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 empower revenue authorities to take action against unauthorized occupation of government land, including removal of encroachments, imposition of penalties, and recovery of damages.
"The authorities under the Revenue Code have inherent jurisdiction to prevent the misuse of public property and a public interest litigation petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is meritless and an abuse of process of law."
The Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be invoked when an equally efficacious remedy exists under a special statute. It cited Amaruddin Ansari v. State of U.P. as binding precedent, which had already settled the principle that PILs seeking enforcement of revenue-related remedies are not maintainable if the statutory framework is functional.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had not demonstrated any failure or delay on the part of the revenue authorities that would justify bypassing the statutory process. The non-receipt of the report from the Standing Counsel on 22.09.2025 did not, in itself, establish a case of administrative inaction warranting judicial intervention.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before the competent revenue authority. The Court directed that any such application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, and no further writ petition shall be entertained on the same subject matter unless the statutory remedy is first exhausted and found to be ineffective.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Remedies Precede Writ Jurisdiction
- Practitioners must first exhaust remedies under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, particularly Sections 26 and 67, before filing PILs or writ petitions for encroachment removal
- Courts will treat PILs as an abuse of process if they bypass clear statutory mechanisms
- The burden is on the petitioner to prove that the statutory authority has acted in bad faith or with undue delay
Public Interest Does Not Override Procedural Requirements
- The public nature of the grievance does not automatically justify invoking Article 226
- Courts are increasingly vigilant against the misuse of PILs as a shortcut to avoid procedural compliance
- Legal strategies must now prioritize administrative remedies before approaching High Courts for land-related disputes
Enforcement Requires Documentary Proof
- Petitioners must produce evidence of prior applications made to revenue authorities
- Failure to show attempts at statutory redressal will result in immediate dismissal
- Revenue records, survey reports, and correspondence with Tehsildars must be annexed to any future application under Section 67
