This court held that a writ petition under Article 226 was not the appropriate remedy to seek relief against a private respondent concerning immovable property. The petition was dismissed without expressing an opinion on merits.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113501-DB
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17540 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ali Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Zainul Abdin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought relief against the private respondent No.5 in respect of an immovable property. In our view, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy for the relief sought in the present writ petition. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023 NLY
Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the appropriate remedy to seek relief against a private respondent regarding immovable property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ali Ahmad
State Of U.P.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
