Disposed

Bhoolan Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023WRIC/28612/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought direction to authorities regarding a representation concerning land. The court found facts highly disputed and noted efficacious remedies existed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or via civil suit, deeming the matter non-maintainable in this court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not entertained and stands disposed of.

Bhoolan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180780-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28612 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Bhoolan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishir Sripat,Saurabh Chaturvedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to take necessary action upon the application of the petitioner dated 30.05.2023 in pursuance of the subsequent order dated 05.06.2023 passed by respondent no. 3.

¶8

In pith and substance, the petitioner claims that his representation dated 30.5.2023 may be decided. Shri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioner states that application/complaint of the petitioner has been entertained by the District Magistrate and the same has been endorsed to the concerned revenue officials to take action as per law. In spite of the said order, till date, on the spot, the petitioner has not been reprieved.

¶9

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the claim has been set up against the private respondent for which the petitioner has got efficacious remedy either to invoke the remedy as available under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or by instituting a suit before competent Civil Court. In the guise of a representation, the title/claim of the petitioner over the land in question cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as highly disputed facts have been urged in the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Needless to say that it is always open to the petitioner to take recourse as available in law.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Rama Kant

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAMAKANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhoolan Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoolan Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Shree Mohta Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivani Singh Vs Union of India and Another

Sunil Agrawal Vs Union Bank of India and Another

Manju Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Medwin Hospitaal and Research Centre and Another Vs State of U.P. and and 5 Others

M/S Maa Vashanav Dairy Vs Electricity Ombudsman, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow and Another