Siya Ram Paswan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Pasi) and is a resident of Village Balpur Jaat, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda and is an occupation of land situated at Gata No.532 area 0.142 hectares and Gata No.531 area 0.316 hectares, which, according to the petitioner, is his ancestral land.

¶14

4. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Rajbali, i.e., the private respondent, who had been granted a patta on land situated in Gata No.532/0.263 hectare (2 dismil) has sold the same to one Smt. Kiran Devi on 22.03.2017 and also executed another sale deed on 29.11.2017 and possession has already been handed over to the purchasers. It seems that there is a demarcation dispute between the petitioner and Rajbali, i.e., respondent No.5 due to which some proceedings were also initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the allegation is that the private respondent with the assistance of the State authorities has demolished the 'chappar ' of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has also given an application to the District Magistrate, Gonda. We have also perused his

¶15

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

representation dated 17.02.2026, from the perusal of which it is evident that the dispute is only between the petitioner and the private respondent, while, on the other hand, there is no material on record which could justify the possession of the petitioner on the disputed land.

¶18

5. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present dispute is a private dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent which is being given the colour of involvement of the State authorities. In any view of the matter, the petitioner can institute regular proceedings for possession and also for title, if any, which may be claimed by him in regular proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶19

6. Within the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed .

¶20

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶21

March 9, 2026 Shubhankar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Siya Ram Paswan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siya Ram Paswan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 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

Similar cases

Sepoy Dushyant Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defense Army New Delhi and 7 Others

Dhananjay Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lok Bhawan Lko. and 3 Others

Vriddhi Kapoor Thru. Her Father and Natural Guardian Shri Raj Kapoor and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Adhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 5 Others

Rohit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Rajat Garg vs Reserve Bank of India Thru. Regional Director Gomti Nagar Lko. and 4 Others