Dismissed

Syeyda Bano v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2022WRIC/34242/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandate against police officials to allow construction of a Masjid. The court held that the dispute involved evidence appreciation regarding Rasta issues and lay outside writ jurisdiction, advising the petitioner to approach the civil court.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of dismissing the writ petition with liberty to seek other remedies.

Syeyda Bano Vs State of U P and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34242 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Syeyda Bano Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing respondent no.2 i.e. District Magistrate, Kaushambi to take action against respondents no. 3 and 4 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi and Sub Divisional Magistrate, TehsilChail, District Kaushambi and restrain them from interfering in construction of a Masjid over Gata No. 210 area 214.42 Sq. Metre at Village Garhi, Harnather, Tehsil Sadar, District Kaushambi.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that she is having an old Kutcha house over the above land. It is evident from the assertion made in para 8 of the writ petition that adjoining her house there is a Imambara. The petitioner filed an application before the revenue authorities complaining that one Dawood who is alleged to be a land Mafia is not permitting her to raise constructions and there is also some dispute relating to Rasta between her house and Imambara. It seems that on her application, a report was submitted on 01.04.2021 by Lekhpal, and on the basis of which Tehsildar made an endorsement on the application that no hindrance be caused in raising construction by the petitioner but at the same time law and order should be maintained.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said report Dawood, who is having considerable influence over the local police, is not permitting the petitioner to raise constructions.

¶8

In compliance of the previous order, learned Standing Counsel is in receipt of instructions, according to which it is not disputed that the petitioner has her old Abadi over the Aarazi No. 870 but at the same time there also exists an old Imambara near it. The instructions specifically mentions that there is dispute between the petitioner and Dawood @ Dada s/o Yusuf relating to approach road and it has been denied that any hindrance is being caused in raising construction by the respondents. The specific stand of the State-respondents is that the land in question being Abadi land, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction over it, and the petitioner has remedy of approaching civil court for appropriate relief.

¶9

We find considerable force in the stand taken by the Staterespondents.

¶10

In fact it is evident from the document brought on record by the petitioner herself that there is a dispute relating to Rasta between her and Dawood who has not been impleaded as a party-respondent to the instant petition. Moreover, the dispute sought to be raised requires appreciation of evidence which we decline to enter into in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶11

The petition is disposed of with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek such other remedy as may be available to her under law.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.3.2022 Imroz

¶13

(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶14

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD IMROZ KHAN Date: 2022.03.23 18:04:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Syeyda Bano v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syeyda Bano v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gama and 72 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ambreeh Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Mahesh Chandra Vs Pooja

Mushtak Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Pooja Fuits and Company Navin Phal Evam Sabji Mandi Sector 88 and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others