Disposed

Mathuri Ram v. State of Up and 10 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024WRIC/23902/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition concerning an encroachment suit. The court refused to issue further notices, directing the petitioner to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate to address the fundamental issues regarding alleged contravention of a permanent injunction.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition; liberty granted to petitioner to represent cause before Sub Divisional Magistrate; authorities directed to ensure no dispossession and act within six weeks.

Mathuri Ram vs State of Up and 10 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134111

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23902 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mathuri Ram Respondent :- State Of Up And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Patel,Yashwant Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Yashwant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri Awadhesh Kumar Patel learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the respondent nos. 3 to 11.

¶9

The case of the writ petitioner is that he along with the private respondents are the resident of the same Village i.e. Bhadaila, Post Jaigaha, Pargana Anguli, Tehsil Sahganj, District Jaunpur and possess transferable right over the Arazi No. 568/0.0610 and are in possession since long. On account of inter se dispute which occasioned in the year 1996 the writ petitioner claims to have preferred Original Suit No. 596/1996 (Mathuri Vs. Harkhuram and others) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaunpur which came to be decreed in favour of the writ petitioner on 15.05.2010. A Civil Appeal No. 23/2010 was preferred by the defendants before the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Jaupur which was partly allowed and Execution Case No. 4/2015 was also instituted by the writ petitioner before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahganj, District- Jaunpur for execution of the judgment and the decree dated 15.05.2010 and on 16.05.2012

¶10

order has been passed. However, according to the writ petitioner the private respondents herein are deliberately committing act unbecoming of a gentleman while encroaching upon the land and cutting the trees compelled with the same the writ petitioner has claims to have instituted Original Suit No. 854 of 2011 (Mathuriram Vs. Dharmendra and others) and during the pendency of the said suit an interim injunction was granted and ultimately on 17.11.2021 permanent injunction has also been granted. In para 8 of the writ petition it has been asserted that the order dated 17.11.2021 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had attained finality as neither any appeal has been preferred nor any proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been initiated. In para 10 of the writ petition it is further asserted that in the month of June, 2024 private respondents have started making construction of wall and creating obstruction and in this regard the writ petitioner claims to have approached the District Administration, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahganj, District Jaunpur.

¶11

The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction commanding the second respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahganj, Jaunpur to take necessary action against the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to restrain them for making any construction.

¶12

This Court entertained the Writ Petition on 02.08.2024 while passing the following order:-

¶13

"1. It is submitted that the petitioner is Bhumidhar-with-transferable right of the plot no.568 area 0.0610 hectare. A civil suit filed on behalf of the petitioner being O.S. No.854/2011 has been decreed against the contesting private respondents, vide order dated 17.11.2021, which became final between the parties. However, contesting respondents in collusion with the

¶14

local tehsildar and the lekhpal are trying to raise construction and cut the trees as well standing over there despite the injunction decree. Tesildar and the Lekhpal are throughout trying to dispossess the petitioner from the partial area of the plot no.568.

¶15

2. Learned Standing Counsel has prayed for and granted two weeks' time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶16

3. Put up this matter as fresh on 21.08.2024. In the meantime, the authorities concerned shall ensure that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the plot in question during this period except in accordance with law."

¶17

Today, learned Standing Counsel has made submission at bar that he is not possessed with the instructions. According to him let the writ petitioner represents his cause before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahganj, District Jaunpur, who shall address to the core and the fundamental issues in that regard and insure that no untoward incident occurres in that regard. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that he does not propose to file any response or take additional time in this regard.

¶18

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner gracefully accepts the said suggestions.

¶19

Considering the submission of the rival parties and stand taken by them no fruitful purpose would be solved in detaining the writ petition on both. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to represent his cause before the second respondent Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahganj, District- Jaunpur redressing his grievances, who shall thereupon take necessary action as permissible unwarranted in law. It is always open to the writ petitioner to take appropriate proceedings before the competent court of law in case there is a violation of perpetual injunction in that regard. The second respondent shall do

¶20

the needful with most expedition in accordance with law subject to any legal impediment in that regard within a period of six weeks from the production of the certified copy of the order.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Sharad/-

¶22

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mathuri Ram v. State of Up and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathuri Ram v. State of Up and 10 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajkumar Singh Tomar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sita Ram vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nand Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Achchhe Lal and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Azamgarh and 9 Others

Deepak Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Pranjali Yadav vs Union of India and 3 Others