This writ petition was dismissed as it involved a dispute over immovable property possession between two sets of private individuals, for which no writ jurisdiction arises despite the petitioner's claim of illegal possession by other private parties.
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. - 20475 of 2021
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner claims that he is recorded bhumidhar of Arazi No.1098, village Chakarpura, District Etawah. It is alleged that respondents No. 6 and 7 are bhu-mafia and they have taken illegal possession of the land of the petitioner since last ten years.
The petitioner has been running from pillar to post but no authority has come to rescue and hence, the writ petition for a direction to the State-respondents to ensure restitution of his possession over the land.
It is clear that there is dispute relating to possession over immovable property between two set of private individuals. The petitioner is stated to have filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate. He is free to avail other civil remedies if so advised. No occasion arises for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction in relation to dispute over immovable property between two set of private individuals.
The petition is wholly misconceived and is dismissed .
(Deepak Verma,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Order Date :- 3.9.2021 Meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction is maintainable for a dispute over possession of immovable property between private individuals.
Whether the maintenance of a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction in a property dispute between private parties.
Arvind Kumar
State Of U.P.
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
