Petitioner challenged interference in land possession. The Court held land title is for civil courts, not District Magistrates, dismissing the suit as misconceived.
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. - 15288 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rajmati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The dispute appears to be between private parties i.e. the petitioner and respondents no. 6 & 7 against whom the allegation is that they are interfering in the rightful possession of the petitioner's land and not allowing the petitioner to complete the construction work and in this regard the petitioner said that she has moved an application before the District Magistrate.
It is to be noted that the dispute appears to be land's title between the private parties which cannot be settled by the Executive Authority, such as District Magistrate. The petitioner has to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. In writ proceeding such direction cannot be given.
The writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.10.2020 Sunil Kr. Gupta
(Prakash Padia, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a land title dispute between private parties can be settled by the District Magistrate as part of a writ petition.
Whether the writ petition is misconceived in seeking interference in a property possession dispute.
Rajmati Devi
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
