Disposed¶9

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

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2022WRIC/16674/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 16674 of 2022, decided 9.6.2022, bench of Manoj Kumar Gupta and Chandra Kumar Rai, JJ. Petitioner Chandrapal Singh sought mandamus to SDM/District Magistrate, Aligarh to restrain respondent no.5 from raising pakka/illegal constructions without demarcation. Court held that with execution proceedings pending on the partition decree (S.176 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act), writ jurisdiction cannot be used to examine the inter-se dispute; petition disposed, liberty given to pursue pending or fresh remedies. Keywords: mandamus, execution of decree, partition suit, inter-se dispute, writ jurisdiction, SHO Khair, Tehsildar Khair.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioner left at liberty to seek remedy in pending proceedings or institute fresh proceedings, if so advised. ¶9

Chandrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16674 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Chandrapal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babboo Ram,Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

The instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take decision on the application of the petitioner dated 19.5.2022. In the said application, the petitioner had made a prayer to the District Magistrate, Aligarh to retrain respondent no.5 from raising illegal constructions and for issuing necessary directions in this behalf to SHO, Khair or Tehsildar, Khair.

¶6

It is pertinent to note that respondent no.5 had approached this Court by way of Writ-C No. 27296 of 2021 with the grievance that the decree passed in a partition suit under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not being executed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.1.2022 with direction to respondent no.3 to ensure execution of the decree without any delay, after verifying that there is no stay or impediment in its execution.

¶7

The petitioner has alleged in his application filed before the District Magistrate, Aligarh that the private-respondent is bent upon taking possession by force and also intends to raise pakka constructions without getting the land demarcated.

¶8

In our opinion, since the execution proceedings are stated to be pending, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to examine inter-see dispute between petitioner and the privaterespondent in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is left open to the petitioner to seek remedy in pending proceedings or institute fresh proceedings, if so advised.

¶9

The petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶10

Order Date: - 9.6.2022 CS/-

¶11

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

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.06.13 10:29:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

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

Ajij and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others