Dismissed

Jokhan Lal v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019WRIC/22796/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against private respondents for interfering in his peaceful construction of land was held not maintainable. The Court relied on precedent stating police and administrative authorities cannot interfere in inter se private disputes over immovable property and dated the petition disposed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jokhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

ourt No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22796 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Jokhan Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶7

"(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 to4 to take strict action against the respondent nos. 5and 6, who are interfering in peaceful construction of the petitioner over his land pertaining to Khasra no. 24, area 0.194 hectare situate at village Bheski , pargana and tehsil Handia , District Prayagraj forthwith."

¶8

A perusal of record shows that the petitioner is seeking a direction against the private Respondent No. 6, who is trying to encroach on the land of the petitioner in dispute.

¶9

This Court in Writ Petition No. 50033 of 2015 (Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP & others) has held that the police and administrative authority must not interfere in the inter se dispute between two private parties in respect of immovable properties. In this regard, learned Standing Counsel has placed a Government Order dated 16.9.2015 issued by the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government in pursuance of the order dated 4.9.2018 passed by this Court wherein it has been stated as follows:

¶10

"In this behalf, I am directed to say that while complying with Hon'ble High Court's order dated 04.09.2015 in letter & spirit, it be ensured that such matters of immovable property pending between the private parties, whose cases are pending before competent court or where Hon'ble Courts have passed

¶11

interim order, no administrative order should be passed on miscellaneous applications. In future, if any such matter comes to the notice of the Government, then it shall be construed strictly and strict penal action shall be taken against the officers guilty for the same." [English Translation].."

¶12

Since the petitioner, in substance, is seeking relief against the private respondent, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶13

In view of the above, we do not see any justification to interfere in the matter. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may take proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶14

With the above observation, writ petition stands disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 16.7.2019 MLK

Jokhan Lal v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jokhan Lal v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Begum and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indra Sen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahaveer Prasad Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Meena Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Rekha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harish Chandra Singh Vs Union of India and Another