Dismissed

Sri Thakur Rangji Mahraj Virajman Mandir v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2019WRIC/18685/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to restrain respondents from illegal construction and encroachment on its land. The court held that the dispute involved title and possession issues requiring oral and documentary evidence, beyond the scope of Article 226. Petitioner advised to seek remedy under common law via suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Thakur Rangji Mahraj Virajman Mandir Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18685 of 2008

¶3

Petitioner :- Sri Thakur Rangji Mahraj Virajman Mandir Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.P. Pandey,Amit Saxena,G.P. Agarwal,Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Kumar,S.S. Chaubey,S.S.Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.P. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The petition has filed this writ petition with following relief. Relief 'A' is a substantial relief which is quoted hereunder:-

¶7

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restrain the respondent no. 2 from illegal construction and encroachment on the petitioner's land and to restore back the encroached land in the same position as it was prior to 20.9.2006 when this Hon'ble Court has passed orders to maintain 'status quo'."

¶8

It also transpires from the record that the contesting respondents are sitting tenant of the petitioner and there is already eviction suit pending between the parties.

¶9

In our considered opinion, the relief which has been claimed is substantially a relief for which the petitioner can seek an appropriate remedy under common law. The suit for injunction does not amount to simplicitor injunction as it does entail a lot of issues regarding title, possession etc. Findings of fact that are required to be arrived requires both oral and documentary evidence and this Court does not have mechanism to carry out such exercise under article 226 of constitution. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that the petitioner may seek remedy under common law, if so advised. The writ petition is dismissed and consigned to record with the aforesaid liberty.

¶10

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶11

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 14.10.2019 Shiraz

Sri Thakur Rangji Mahraj Virajman Mandir v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Thakur Rangji Mahraj Virajman Mandir v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munshi Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nasreem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Nath Vs Zonal Manager L.I.C. Varanasi and Another

Union of India Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive and Another Vs Central Information Commission New Delhi and Others

The Punjab Transport Co. and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others