Disposed¶16

Ram Autar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2026WRIC/13900/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court writ petition seeking mandamus for removal of a private party's possession over land despite a final decree under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Court accepted that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be invoked against a private individual and disposed of the petition with liberty to pursue available legal remedies. Keywords: mandamus; possession; dispossession; U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 s.116; Article 226; private individual; disposal with liberty.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioner granted liberty to take recourse to the legal remedy as available to him under law; the mandamus sought was not issued. ¶16

Ram Autar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 13900 of 2026

Ram Autar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Om Narayan Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 36

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶11

This petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶12

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to remove the illegal and forcibly taken possession of the respondent No.4 over the share of petitioner as decided by respondent No.3 in his order dated 31.07.2019 passed in the proceeding of suit under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."

¶13

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after a final decree under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 was passed, the petitioner was put in possession over the land in dispute. Later on, the petitioner was dispossessed by respondent No. 4.

¶14

It has been stated by learned Standing Counsel that the dispute of the petitioner is with private individual i.e. respondent No. 4 for which jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked.

¶15

Petitioner, if so advised, may take recourse to the legal remedy as available to him under law.

¶16

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶17

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶18

April 20, 2026 Nitika Sri.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Autar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Autar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Murari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Dayal vs State of U.P. and 27 Others

Megh Nath vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Chhedi @ Chhedi Lal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Keshav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prabal Prakash Tiwari and Another vs State of Up and 23 Others