Dismissed

Mohd. Anees v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024WRIC/8725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged a dispute involving land between private parties. The court held that Article 226 is not applicable as the matter is purely a private dispute between the parties, who must approach the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police or avail remedies under law.

Mohd. Anees vs State of U.P. Thru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69760-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8725 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd. Anees Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohiuddin Khan,Mohd. Yasir Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Surendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, what comes out is that the dispute is between private parties herein in respect of the land in question and certain proceedings were initiated before the Civil Court by the petitioner in the form of a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed for want of prosecution and thereafter an application for restoration has been filed by the petitioner which is pending.

¶7

Like-wise, some proceedings were initiated for partition by the private respondents wherein some orders were passed for recall of which the petitioner has moved some application which is also pending. In the meantime, the respondents as informed are raising construction on the land in question.

¶8

Against this background, this petition has been filed seeking the reliefs prayed herein. In this context, our attention has been drawn towards the earlier petition filed by private opposite parties alleging illegal interference by the petitioners herein in the land in question wherein the petitioners of the said petition were directed to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raebareilly by way of representation as there was allegation of collusion of Station House Officer with the petitioner herein.

¶9

Be that as it may. The dispute is essentially a private one pertaining to land and it is a dispute between private parties herein. We fail to understand as to how we can consider or grant the reliefs as prayed for in this petition under Article 226. The petitioner may avail the remedies as may be prescribed under law.

¶10

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 16.10.2024/Pks

¶12

[Brij Raj Singh,J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶13

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Anees v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Anees v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 12 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Rashid vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Musafirkhana Distt. Amethi and Others

Mangal Pandey Nagar Vyapar Association Thru. Authorize Sign. Mr. Ram Gopal Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas and 4 Others

Ravindra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue , Lucknow and 5 Others

M/S Shakuntala Medical Hall Thru. Proprietor Manu Jeevan Rastogi and 2 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railway, Central Secy. New Delhi and 2 Others

Shiv Bhagwan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of U.P. Govt. Lko and 5 Others

M/S Jai Ma Kali Construction and Suppliers Thru. Proprietor Vivek Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj U.P. Lko. and 3 Others