Disposed¶12

Usha Devi v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023WRIC/38742/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 51), single judge Chandra Kumar Rai, decided 8.11.2023; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:215796. Keywords: Article 226 maintainability; private dispute; writ petition not entertainable; demarcation of land; Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Gata No. 33; Rakba 0.2670 hectare; Village Kurpura; Tehsil Bidhuna; District Auraiya; registered sale deed; interference with possession; mandamus; liberty to approach revenue authorities; Usha Devi v. State of U.P.; writ disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to initiate proper proceeding for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in accordance with law. ¶12

Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to initiate proper proceeding for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in accordance with law.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 seeking restraint of private respondent nos. 4 to 7 from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession over Gata No. 33, Rakba 0.2670 hectare, Village Kurpura, Tehsil Bidhuna, District Auraiya (claimed under a registered sale deed), and a direction for demarcation of the gata, is maintainable where the dispute is private in nature.

¶10

Court's answer

In view of the arguments and averments 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.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to initiate proper proceeding for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in accordance with law.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WRIT - C No. 38742 of 2023) filed by Usha Devi sought a mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 to restrain private respondent nos. 4 to 7 from interfering with her peaceful possession over Gata No. 33, Rakba 0.2670 hectare, situated at Village Kurpura, Pargana and Tehsil Bidhuna, District Auraiya, claimed on the basis of a registered sale deed, and further sought demarcation of the said gata so that respondent nos. 4 to 7 could not interfere with her possession. The State's contention was that the dispute being private in nature, the writ petition was not maintainable. Held, disposing of the petition: in view of the arguments and the averments in the writ petition, the relief claimed could not be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; liberty was granted to the petitioner to initiate proper proceedings for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:215796

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38742 of 2023 Petitioner :- Usha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

"(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.

¶8

(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."

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

In view of the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the 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.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.11.2023/C.Prakash

¶14

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Usha Devi v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Devi v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagat Lal Patel Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Sahay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tulsiram Vs Salik Ram and 2 Others

Aatma Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Noorjahan Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

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