Court dismissed a writ petition regarding a property dispute between private parties, holding it non-maintainable. The Court referred to a prior order prohibiting administrative interference in private immovable property disputes.
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. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23562 of 2019
Petitioner :- Krishna Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prasad Pandey, Rajesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:
"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to consider the claim and decide the application of the petitioner expeditiously or within a stipulated period of time.
(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 and 3 to restrain the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 not to use the boring pump set and Mango tree situated at Gata No. 56 Village Arazi Dehgala, District Pilibhit."
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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:
"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 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]
Since the petitioner, in substance, is seeking relief against the private respondents, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may take proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019 Arun
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner seeks relief against private parties in a property dispute.
Whether the Court can entertain writ petitions commanding administrative authorities to restrain private respondents from using property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP & othersReferred¶9
Writ Petition No. 50033 of 2015 (Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP & others)
Krishna Lal
State Of U.P.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
