The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to execute a sale deed for a property alleged to be allotted to the petitioner's mother. The court held that disputed questions of fact regarding allotment and possession prevent adjudication in writ jurisdiction.
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach civil court.
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. - 14812 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sharad Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rang Nath Pandey,Santosh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devi Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Arun Kumar on behalf of respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rang Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 & 4.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brothers of plot no. 402 General Shop situated at Transport Nagar Commercial Scheme, Allahabad which is stated to have been allotted to Smt. Pushpa Chauhan (mother of the petitioner) on 6.4.1985. The allotment letter has not been filed with the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not in possession of the same as his mother and father were residing in the house.
Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 states that on the petitioner's representation, he was directed to produce the letter of allotment since the same plot has already been allotted to one Satish Chandra Gupta and a lease deed was executed in his favour and a free hold deed has also been executed and therefore, the petitioner is not in possession over the plot in question.
The petitioner insists that he is residing in the plot. We find that there is no letter of allotment on record and some other person namely, Sri Satish Chandra Gupta is residing in the plot which is disputed by the petitioner.
Since disputed question of facts are involved in this case, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction, we, therefore, dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate civil remedy.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 nd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be directed by a writ court to execute a sale deed regarding a disputed property where title is contested.
Whether a question involving disputed facts regarding allotment and possession can be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Sharad Chauhan
State Of U.P.
Other Respondents
B. Amit Sthalekar
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
