Shri Shahzad Khan v. State of U.P. and 6 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6902 of 2019…
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6902 of 2019…
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. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6902 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shri Shahzad Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Tiwari,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Dubey,Kamini Pandey (Dubey)
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 7.
The prayer in the writ petition is to restrain the respondents no. 3 and 4 from interfering in the peaceful possession over Khasra/Plot no. 2 of Khata no. 20 measuring 3.2876 hectare situated at Nagla Kali, Tehsil and District Agra in view of the decree dated 5.6.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Agra. The order of the court below dated 5.6.2010 has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The respondents no. 3 and 4 are private individuals.
In our opinion, if the petitioner has a decree dated 5.6.2010 in his favour, the remedy for him is to apply for execution of the said decree. In any case, this writ petition against private persons who may be interfering in the possession of his property is not maintainable.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.4.2019 Kirti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can restrain private individuals from interfering in the possession of the petitioner's property despite an existing decree.
Shahzad Khan
State Of U.P.
B. Amit Sthalekar
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court