Disposed

Deepak Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024WRIC/8875/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus against State officers to restrain private parties from interfering with their land and to remove encroachments. The Court dismissed the petition, holding it is a private dispute requiring remedies in Civil or Revenue Courts, not a writ jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Deepak Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76190-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8875 of 2024 Petitioner :- Deepak Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Ankit Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

¶7

"I) issue a, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 to restrain Opposite Party No. 6 to 12 from interfering in the appurtenant land to the house of the petitioners which has been confirmed in the Civil Suit No. 75 of 1983 vide order dated 09.12.1983 passed by The Court of Munshi hawala as well as in the regular suit appeal no. 66 of 1984 vide order dated 20.01.1988 passed by Additional District Judge. Lucknow (Contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2), in the interest of justice.

¶8

II) issue a, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to direct the opposite parties particularly Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 to broke down/ uproot the date installed by Opposite Party No. 6 to 12 as shown in photographs (contained as Annexure No. 5) (contained as Annexure No. 5) at an earliest, in the interest of justice."

¶9

Ms. Akansha Dubey, learned Standing Counsel says that she has instructions from the local Police to inform the Court that the Police has interfered only to maintain law and order, otherwise it is a private dispute.

¶10

Having seen the photographs and also having gone through the records, we are of the opinion that the petitioners' should seek remedies before the Civil Court or the Revenue Court, as the case may be. There is no way that this Court can enter into a private dispute between private parties and grant an injunction, certainly not in the facts of this case.

¶11

In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶13

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

¶14

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Deepak Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Deepak Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal Kishor Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

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

Smt. Brij Rani Alias Mamti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Secy. Lko. and 7 Others

Bar Bareek Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate District Gonda and 5 Others

Vinay Kumar Verma vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs South Block Sectt. New Delhi and Others