Dismissed

Suryapal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025/10664/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to stop construction on a water canal and remove an obstruction. The High Court found the work involved covering an open drain to prevent overflow and disease. Finding no violation of private rights, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction to stay construction or remove obstacle.

Suryapal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10664 of 2025

Suryapal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 03rd November, 2025 under the signatures of S.D.O. Bighapur, District Unnao for perusal of the Court and the same is taken on record. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.

¶12

2.By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following main reliefs:-

¶13

"(i) Issue order or direction in the nature of Mandamus through opposite parties stay construction work of dewar making on Water Canal Nali in Village Sohramau, Majara, Sijani Soharamu, Pargana Purwa, Tehsil-Bighapur, District Unnao, just and proper in the interest of justice.

¶14

(ii) Issue order or direction in the nature of Mandamus through opposite party no. 3 removal of such obstacle source of water canal (Nali) he may direct the removal of such obstacle and may or that purpose use or caused to be used such force, as may be necessarily and may recover, just and proper in the interest of justice."

¶15

The learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel for the Gaon Sabha have jointly submitted that the manner in which the petitioner has alleged that any wall is being constructed is not quite correct, inasmuch

¶16

WRIC No. 10664 of 2025

¶17

¶18

as, only an open drain is being covered to avoid dirty water to overflow and to avoid choking of drains as well as avoidance of any disease.

¶19

4.It has further been urged that there is no construction of wall and in any case the work is for the benefit of the residents and as such the relief which is sought is not maintainable.

¶20

5.Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of extracts provided along with the written instructions including the photographs, it reveals that the Gaon Sabha is only undertaking an exercise to cover an open drain.

¶21

6.The aforesaid facts cannot be objected by the petitioner unless there is any violation of his private rights which apparently has not been meet out.

¶22

7.Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition, however, leaving it open for the petitioner that in case if he still feel aggrieved for any violation of his private rights, he may be at liberty of taking recourse to law as may be permitted.

¶23

8.With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed .

¶24

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶25

November 26, 2025

¶26

Asheesh

¶27

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

Suryapal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryapal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 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