Dismissed

Prem Chandra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2022WRIC/26947/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ mandamus against description of order dispossessing him and damaging his structure. Bench held that since petitioner already filed a civil suit with temporary injunction, he must approach Civil Court under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. Writ dismissed. Court expressed liberty to press civil application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to press application under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure.

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26947 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Naveen Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed for mandamus commanding respondent-authorities not to harass the petitioner in any manner and to restore the possession of the petitioner over Araji No.253 measuring 0.035 Aire and necessary compensation be given to the petitioner for the demolition of his house by the respondent-authorities.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Arazi No.253 measuring 0.035 Aire recroded as abadi {class 6 (2)} in the revenue records. He further submitted that petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community and he is residing in the same along with his family members but respondent-authorities without any order of the Court have demolished the construction of the petitioner, as such, petitioner has instituted a Civil Suit No.1994 of 2018 for decree of injunction in which order of temporary injunction was passed which is still continuing and suit is still pending before the Civil Court. He next submitted that proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure has already been initiated by the petitioner which is pending before the Civil Court but the respondent-authorities are adamant to demolish the remaining construction and dispossess of the petitioner from the plot in dispute, as such, necessary protection be given to the petitioner.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that since petitioner has already filed the civil suit and temporary injunction has been passed in his favour so remedy lies before the Civil Court not before this Court by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

Since the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in respect of Arazi No.253 and temporary injunction order has been passed by the Civil Court, as such, petitioner can avail the remedy of Civil Court for necessary protection by way of application under Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code. Petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in this writ petition.

¶11

The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to press his application under Order 39 Rule2A of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.9.2022 Rameez

¶13

Digitally signed by RAMEEZ AHMED Date: 2022.09.09 16:59:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Chandra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chandra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuilot Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Ram Naresh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Deopoojan Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Phool Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhimanu Maurya Vs State of U P and 3 Others