The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging private interference with land possession, holding that the remedy lies in a civil suit for injunction, not in writ jurisdiction.
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. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14447 of 2020
Petitioner :- Smt. Shila Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1, 2, 5 and 6 and Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no.3 and 4.
The petitioner claims that on his private land some private respondents are not allowing the water connection to be installed.
It is to be noted that if any private individual is interfering in the peaceful possession of the property of the petitioner, the petitioner has remedy for filing a suit for injunction against such person. In writ jurisdiction such direction cannot be given.
The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2020 Pramod Tripathi
(Prakash Padia,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court can issue a direction to compel a private individual to allow water connection installation on private land.
Shila Yadav
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
