The court held that the dispute over possession and repair of the house is purely private in nature. No direction to executive authorities is required as the matter involves civil rights between individuals.
petition dismissed for being not maintainable as it concerns a private dispute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39609 of 2018
Petitioner :- Furmaan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibha Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Babu Yadav
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Ms. Vibha Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hare Ram Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the construction and peaceful possession of the in his old house. According to the petitioner he is the owner and in possession of Arazi No. 119 which he wants to repair and this is in a bad condition but the respondent no. 4 is interfering in his peaceful possession and repair of the said house.
This appears to be a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 in which no direction is required to the S.H.O., S.D.M. or Collector, as claimed by the petitioner.
The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11759 of 2018 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 30465 of 2017 (Rohina T Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others) decided on 3.12.2018 has held in paragraphs 10 and 1 as under:
"10. In our considered opinion, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the appellant before the High Court for grant of relief of restoration of the possession of the flat in question was not maintainable and the same ought to have been dismissed in limine as being not maintainable. In other words, the High Court ought to have declined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution for grant of reliefs claimed therein.
11. It is not in dispute that the reliefs for which the writ petition was filed by respondent No. 1 herein against the appellant pertained to possession of the flat. It is also not in dispute that one Civil Suit No. 807/2014 between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 in relation to the flat in question for grant of injunction was pending in the Court of Munsif at Kozhikode. It is also not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are private individuals and both are claiming their rights of
ownership and possession over the flat in question on various factual grounds." For reasons aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .
However, the petitioner may avail the remedy, as may be available to him in law, if so advised.
Order Date :- 4.12.2018 o.k.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere in a private dispute regarding possession and repair of an old house.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Civil Appeal No. 11759 of 2018 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 30465 of 2017 (Rohina T Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others)Explained¶8
Furmaan
State Of U.P.
4 Others
B. Amit Sthalekar
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
