Dismissed

Anurag Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 May 2019WRIC/18630/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the writ petition seeking quashing of an order regarding land plots. The court held that since the petitioners have filed a pending civil suit regarding the same property, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 as a parallel remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without ordering a quashing of the impugned order, as the remedy is pending in civil court.

Anurag Upadhyay and Another Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18630 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Anurag Upadhyay And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Pandey,Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 20th May, 2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority in respect of Plot Nos. 244 and 246 situated in Village Maharajpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District Azamgarh.

¶7

We find that in respect of same land, petitioners' father Late Bechan had earlier filed a civil suit being Suit No. 294 of 1990 in the court of Munsif City, Azamgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that after death of petitioners' father- plaintiff, the petitioners have now been substituted as plaintiffs. From the material on record we are satisfied that in respect of the same property, the petitioners are seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is pending consideration before the civil court.

¶8

It is a trite law that a writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution as a parallel remedy, if the petitioners have sought some other remedy and have instituted civil suit. Reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1977 SC 898, which has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court.

¶9

In view of the above, without adverting to the issue raised in the writ petition, we decline to interfere under Article 226 of the

¶10

Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. We make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not cause any prejudice to either of the parties in the suit. It is open for the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy which is available to them under law.

¶11

No order as to costs.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.5.2019 Digamber

Anurag Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Pant Vs Smt. Ritambhara @ Shikha

Smt. Jimmy Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogesh @ Pintu Kumar Vs Manorma Devi

Yadan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Seth Ratan Lal Entertainment Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Balle and Another Vs Government of India and 10 Others