The single-judge high court dismissed this writ petition as misconceived. The court held that since the petitioners were already pursuing a civil suit for permanent injunction regarding the same land dispute, they were availing their appropriate remedy before the civil court.
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. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42296 of 2019
Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Saxena And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
The relief claimed in this writ petition is against private respondent no. 4 with the allegation that the respondent no. 4 is encroaching upon the rights of the petitioners over the land in question.
Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the petitioners have already filed a Suit No. 582 of 2019 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi for permanent injunction.
Since the petitioners are already availing their remedy before a civil court, the writ petition for the same prayer cannot be maintained before this Court.
The writ petition is hereby dismissed being misconceived.
Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Pkb/
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)
Anand Kumar Saxena
And Another
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Abhinava Upadhya
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
