Dismissed

Nirmala Devi v. State of U P and 14 Others

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2023WRIC/40424/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The present writ petition sought to restrain respondents from constructing a kachcha house on disputed land. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to press her grievances before the trial court where an original suit seeking permanent injunction is already pending.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to proceed in the pending original suit in the trial court.

Nirmala Devi Vs State of U P and 14 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40424 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Nirmala Devi Respondent :- State Of U P And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Charan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Charan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uttara Bhahuguna, learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred for commanding the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 to restrain the respondent nos.5 to 15 not raise any construction over the property in question as Kachcha house of the petitioner situated in village - Rudhauli, Police Station Sarpataha, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the 8th respondent namely Manju Wife of Amarnath approached this Court by filing Writ - C No.29410 of 2022 (Manju Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) wherein a request was made to direct the respondent no.2 and 3 (District Magistrate, Jaunpur and Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, respectively) to restrain the fourth respondent (Station House Officer, P.S. Sarpataha, District Jaunpur) not to interfere in the peaceful reconstruction of house by the petitioner under the influence of the fifth respondent Nirmala (petitioner herein). The aforementioned writ petition was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.11.2022 the same is reproduced :-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The prayer in this petition is to command the respondents 2 and 3 (District Magistrate, Jaunpur and Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur respectively) to restrain the fourth respondent (Station House Officer, P.S. Sarpataha, District Jaunpur) not to interfere in peaceful reconstruction of the house by the petitioner under the influence of the fifth respondent (Nirmala).

¶10

As it has not been disclosed as to how and why fifth respondent is influencing fourth respondent and as to what right fifth respondent is claiming over the property, any interference on our part would complicate the issues arising

¶11

between two private persons in respect of a private property. We, therefore, dispose off this petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to represent her cause to the third respondent (Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur), if the fourth respondent, without authority of law, is interfering in a dispute concerning private property.

¶12

With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is disposed off." In this background learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that under the influence of Manju (petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition) the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur has reported that there is no interference in her construction, therefore, she may carry on the construction. He submits that the said permission is perse - unsustainable. The petitioner herself has filed Original Suit No.84 of 2022 (Nirmala Vs. Ram Kripal) for permanent injunction against the private respondent for not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahganj, Jaunpur in which application for interim injunction was filed in which notices were issued on 12.1.2022 returnable on 8.2.2022. It is thus, submitted that once aforesaid proceedings has already been initiated, therefore, private respondent may be restrained not to carry out any construction on the plot in question.

¶13

Ms. Uttara Bhahuguna, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that it is a private dispute interse petitioner and private respondent nos.5 to 15 for not raising any construction over the property in question and admittedly an original suit is pending for the same, therefore, whatever is the grievance of the petitioner, he may raise before the trial Court and no interference in this matter is required by this Court.

¶14

Considering the facts & circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that once the petitioner herself has filed original suit before the trial Court which is pending consideration, therefore, we do not want interfere in the ongoing proceedings, leaving it open to the petitioner to press her grievances before the Court below.

¶15

With the aforesaid leave this petition is disposed off.

¶16

Order Date :- 31.1.2023 Dev/-

¶17

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

Nirmala Devi v. State of U P and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Devi v. State of U P and 14 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

Sujeet Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Sunita Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanju Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Ram Sumer Vs State of U P and 4 Others