Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).

¶11

Supplementary affidavit is taken on record.

¶12

This writ petition is preferred for the following principal reliefs:

¶13

"I. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to pass an appropriate order on the complaint of petitioner dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure No.9 to this writ petition) and may take an Appropriate action against the respondent no.3 and 4 who have illegally disturbed the peaceful possession of the petitioner and insult him by using unconstitutional language before the family members and may also pass suitable order restraining the Officers from interfering in peaceful possession of petitioner over his Abadi land of Gata No.149, 152, 153, 178 total area 16 bishwa situated in Village Chaura Sadatpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Buddh Nagar."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are

¶15

WRIC No. 30980 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over his abadi land. He states that the petitioner had filed Original Suit No.703 (Prakash vs. NOIDA and others) for injunction, which was rejected by the court below on 16.03.2019. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No.19 of 2019, wherein the learned Additional District & Sessions JudgeII/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddh Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2024, allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 16.03.2019, and directed that the NOIDA Authority shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and use of the said land by the petitioner. He submits that despite the injunction order in favour of the petitioner, the officers of the NOIDA Authority are continuously extending threats to dispossess him from his abadi land.

¶18

The relief is opposed by Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 – NOIDA, on the ground that the disputed land is an acquired land. He further submits that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction for execution of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the court below. The appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent court under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C. Once such efficacious remedy exists, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Considering the factual situation, we are not inclined, at this stage, to enter into the merits of the case, as the entire claim rests upon the judgment and order passed by the court below. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any interference by the authority at the spot, it is always open for him to press for execution of the judgment and order passed by the appellate court. We are not inclined to exercise our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and the same is dismissed.

¶21

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶22

October 6, 2025 NLY

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases