Dismissed

Ram Avatar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2023WRIC/38269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged possession interference and sought demarcation of land via a writ petition under Article 226. The Court held the dispute is private in nature, rendering the writ petition unmaintainable. It was disposed of with liberty to seek remedy under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to initiate proper proceeding for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Ram Avatar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:212892

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38269 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Avatar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Patel, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned State Law Officer for the Staterespondents.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to restrain to the respondent nos. 4 to 7 in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the Gata No. 33 Rakba 0.2670 hectare situated at Village Kurpura, Pargana and Tehsil Bidhuna, District Auraiya without any right over the said property.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction to the respondent no.3 to demarcate the Gata No. 33 Rakba 0.2670 hectare situated at Village Kurpura, Pargana and Tehsil Bidhuna, District Auraiya by which respondent nos. 4 to 7 could not interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner."

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is claiming right on the basis of registered sale deed but private respondent nos. 4 to 7 are interfering with the possession of the petitioner, as such, necessary direction be issued for restraining the private respondent nos. 4 to 7 from interfering in the possession of the petitioner as well as direct the authorities to demarcate the plot No. 33 area 0.2670 hectare.

¶11

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned State Law Officer for the Staterespondents submitted that dispute is private in nature, as such, writ petition is not maintainable.

¶12

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶13

In view of the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the

¶14

petitioner as well as the averment made in the writ petition, the writ petition for the relief claimed cannot be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to initiate proper proceeding for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Vandana Y.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Avatar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Avatar v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chandraveer Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mahendra Alias Chandrakant Dubey Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Basant Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 18 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Sajeevan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others