Disposed

Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2019WRIC/24964/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a writ petition seeking enforcement of partition orders dated 2011 and 2014 against private respondents (petitioner's brothers) is not maintainable. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the authorities that passed the orders for their execution. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the authorities (S.D.M. and Assistant Collector) for enforcement of the orders.

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Partition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24964 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner	:- Karan Singh
Respondent :-	State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for	Petitioner :- Raj Kumar
Srivastava,Shiv	Poojan
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 perused the record.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed , inter alia, for the following relief:

¶7

" To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to give the physical possession as per Kura share 1/3 in Gata no. 1170 and 1349 area 0.12 hectare and 0.4260 hectare as per order dated 2.0.2011 passed by sub-divisional magistrate Bharthana, District Etawah and order dated 6.12.2014 passed by Assistant Collector Ist category Bharthana, District Etawah."

¶8

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is trying to get the orders dated 21.0.2011 and 6.12.2014 passed by the S.D.M. Bharthana and Assistant Collector Ist Category, Bharthana District Etawah respectively executed/ enforced.

¶9

A perusal of record shows that the petitioner is seeking direction against the private respondents no.5 and 6, who happen to be the brothers of the petitioner, are allegedly interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in dispute and have forcibly taken possession of the landed property of the petitioner in dispute. The record further reveals that the petitioner had filed a suit, being partition suit no. 113 of 2010-11 under section 176 of U.P..Z.A. & L.R.Act in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bharthana District Etawah, who passed an order on 21.10.2011 dividing the property in dispute and thereafter the Assistant collector Ist Category passed an order on 6.12.2014 in favour of the petitioner. It appears that the said orders are not being complied with by the contesting respondents and the present writ petition has been filed for

¶10

enforcing the said orders.

¶11

The petitioner, in substance, is seeking relief against the private respondents and is trying to enforce the orders dated 21.0.2011 and 6.12.2014 passed by the S.D.M. Bharthana and Assistant Collector Ist Category, Bharthana District Etawah respectively through this writ petition, as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. In the circumstances, the petitioner may approach the very same authorities, who have passed the aforementioned orders dated 21.10.2011 and 6.12.2014 for enforcing their orders, who will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶12

With the above observation, writ petition stands disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 1.8.2019

¶14

MLK

Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundari Shoba and 21 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bireshwar Das and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sankatha Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

M/S. Goswami Traders Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Offset Multicolor Designing of Printing, Sulatanpur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manan Mani Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others