The petitioner, claiming to be a purchaser of a disputed plot, sought a direction to the revenue authority to conduct demarcation. The court held the petition misconceived, noting that statutory remedies under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, are available to the petitioner, and dismissed the writ.
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. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10199 of 2020
Petitioner :- Panbasiya Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner claims to be a purchaser of a plot with respect to which certain dispute has been created by respondent no. 5.
The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the respondent no. 4 to conduct demarcation of the plot in question.
It is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority by taking recourse to the remedy under the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
The writ petition is found wholly misconceived and hence dismissed .
Order Date :- 24.6.2020 Brijesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction from the court for demarcation of a plot when statutory remedies are available.
Whether the writ petition regarding demarcation of disputed land is maintainable.
Panbasiya Devi
State Of U.P.
Sunita Agarwal
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
