The court found that the petitioner's grievance regarding a legacy dispute and pending suit over land compensation is misconceived, holding such questions lie outside writ jurisdiction and should be pursued in the civil suit.
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. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35313 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kailash Chandra Rathor Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition is that certain land of the petitioner was willed by his father to respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioner has challenged the Will by filing a suit for cancellation of Will and declaring it null and void.
It is submitted that in the meantime, National Highways Authority has taken that land and have also passed award and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are seeking compensation and therefore, it is prayed that till the suit is decided the compensation not to be paid to the respondent Nos.4 and 5. Since the petitioner has already filed a suit, the same prayer can be made in that suit. In the writ proceedings, these questions cannot be considered.
The writ petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.11.2019 saqlain
(Prakash Padia ,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J)
Kailash Chandra Rathor
State Of U.P.
Abhinava Upadhya
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
