Dismissed¶11

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2022WRIC/15444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 15444 of 2022, decided 9.6.2022; mandamus and police protection sought against disturbance of possession delivered in execution of decree in Original Suit No.45 of 1999 (Vinay Kumar & 2 others vs. Bijendra Kumar & 3 others); grievance raised before S.S.P. and District Magistrate, Hathras; interference by judgment debtors with antisocial elements; no averment of dispossession by State respondents; false assertion against State respondent to confer maintainability; gross abuse of process of law; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The entire representations made by the petitioners contain no averment that there is any effort of dispossession by the State respondents. ¶7-8

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15444 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding respondents 4 to 6 namely Superintendent of Police, District-Hathras, Sub-Divisional Officer/Magistrate, Sikandrarau and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Hathras from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over land which was in dispute in Original Suit No.45 of 1999 (Vinay Kumar & 2 others vs. Bijendra Kumar & 3 others) and possession whereof was allegedly delivered to the petitioners in execution of the decree passed in the said suit. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State respondents, without any rhyme or reason, are interfering in the possession of the petitioners and this has compelled them to file the instant petition. He further submitted that the petitioners have already approached the S.S.P., Hathras raising their grievance, but no protection is being provided to the petitioners. He further submitted that similar representation was also made to the District Magistrate, Hathras.

¶6

We have gone through the representations made by the petitioners to the above two authorities. We find that in paragraph 2 thereof, the petitioners have alleged that the judgment debtors of the suit are interfering in the possession of petitioners with the help of antisocial elements and that police protection be provided to them.

¶7

In the entire representation made by the petitioners, there is no

¶8

averment that there is any effort of dispossession by the State respondents.

¶9

We are of the firm opinion that the instant petition has been filed with false assertion against the State respondent so as to make it maintainable before this Court.

¶10

Such an effort on part of petitioners amounts to gross abuse of the process of law.

¶11

The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.

¶12

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 9.6.2022 P Kesari

¶14

Digitally signed by PRACHI KESARWANI Date: 2022.06.13 11:40:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahana Begum Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjoo Gond Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kashif Bashar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Kishan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajij and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Chandrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others