Disposed¶8

Zameer Uddin v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2025WRIC/20127/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Boundary wall construction; ancestral property; demarcation; Gram Sabha report dated 15.04.2025; Sub-Divisional Magistrate; portal complaint; Commissioner of Police; no notice to private respondents; writ disposed; Zameer Uddin v. State of U.P.; WRIT - C No. 20127 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; 2025:AHC:106267-DB.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: no notice to private respondent nos. 4 and 5; petitioner to first obtain demarcation of his ancestral property (by raising dispute on the Gram Sabha report dated 15th April, 2025 or otherwise); upon due approach, the concerned authority to look into the issue and cause demarcation within a reasonable time. ¶8

Zameer Uddin Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained where the petitioner alleges wrongful resistance by private respondent nos. 4 and 5 to his construction of a boundary wall over his ancestral property. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Since the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on the Gram Sabha's report dated 15th April, 2025, concluded that the petitioner is constructing over its land, the petitioner must first obtain demarcation of his ancestral property, either upon raising dispute on said report or otherwise.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The Court was not inclined to direct issuance of notice upon private respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶7

Key takeaways

In event the petitioner duly approaches for demarcation, the concerned authority is to look into the issue and cause the demarcation within a reasonable time.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Division Bench (Arindam Sinha, J. and Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.), Writ - C No. 20127 of 2025, Zameer Uddin v. State of U.P. and 4 others, decided 7.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:106267-DB): Petitioner, alleging wrongful resistance by private respondent nos. 4 and 5 to construction of a boundary wall over his ancestral property, sought interference. The Court declined to direct issuance of notice to the private respondents. Noting that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, upon the Gram Sabha's report dated 15th April, 2025, had concluded that the petitioner was constructing over the Gram Sabha's land, the Court held that the petitioner must first obtain demarcation of his ancestral property, either by raising a dispute on that report or otherwise, and directed that if the petitioner duly approaches for demarcation, the concerned authority shall look into the issue and cause the demarcation within a reasonable time. Writ petition disposed of.

Zameer Uddin v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zameer Uddin v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases