Sarvesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shiv Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶10

The instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief :

¶11

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondent nos. 2 to ensure protection of the petitioner's life, liberty, and property by restraining respondent nos. 3, from causing any interference, demolition, or obstruction over Plot No. 46, Arazi Number 269, situated near Patel Tiraha, Wignawan DistrictKanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the present writ petition.

¶12

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondent nos. 2, to provide police and administrative protection to the petitioner and to restrain respondent nos. 3, from annihilating or demolishing the remaining construction of the petitioner's house situated over Plot No. 46, Arazi Number 269, which is his exclusive and transferable property.

¶13

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 (District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar) to decide the petitioner's pending dated representation/application 11.11.2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a timebound period fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the relief sought to the

¶15

WRIC No. 43534 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

extent that the competent authority be directed to decide the representation dated 11.11.2025, moved by the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶19

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case, with the consent of parties herein, the writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that the representation moved by the petitioner dated 11.11.2025 shall be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving ample opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders.

¶20

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) December 10, 2025 Priya

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Similar cases

Farhat Jahan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tipu Sultan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siddhant Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Udaiveer vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Amar Nath Singh vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt. Chitra vs State of U.P. and 7 Other