Dismissed

Geeta v. State of U P and 7 Others

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2019WRIC/5208/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking coercive action and decision on a representation regarding the petitioner's agricultural land. Relying on Shalini Shyam Shetty, the court held that property disputes between private individuals are not appropriate for writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed holding it not maintainable for a property dispute between private individuals.

Geeta Vs State of U P and 7 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5208 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Geeta Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

¶6

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direct to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Goverdhan, District Mathura to take coercive action against the private respondents not to disturb in peaceful cultivaton of the petitioner in Khasara No. 19/23 area 1-025 verge meter, situated Village Derawali, Tehsil Govedrdhan, District Mathura.

¶7

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate (respondent no. 3) to decide the representation dated 25-8-2018 which is still pending within stipulated period."

¶8

We have perused the contents of the writ petition. From perusal of the material on the record it is evident that the matter relates to the property dispute amongst the petitioner and the private respondents. It is well settled law that in the matter of property dispute ordinarily the High Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 has considered a large number of its earlier judgements and held that writ petition is not the proper remedy in respect of the property dispute and the party should be relegated to seek appropriate remedy before the Civil or Revenue Court. Paragraph nos. 64, 65, 66 and 67 of the judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) are extracted hereinbelow-:

¶9

"64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions.

¶10

65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals

¶11

writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.

¶12

66. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law.

¶13

67. As a result of frequent interference by the Hon'ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon'ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly."

¶14

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we make it clear that we have not adjudicated the matter on the merits of the case, hence dismissal of the writ petition shall not cause any prejudice to the interest of the petitioner, if she seeks the remedy provided under the law.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.3.2019 SR

Geeta v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Sarvar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Atiqur Rehman Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Kripa Shanka Vishwakarma and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Harishchandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others