Dismissed¶17

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2026WRIC/2529/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a private land dispute; refusal of mandamus to restrain private parties from raising construction over gata land during pendency of partition proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; remedy lies before the competent revenue authority (SDO Judicial, Bikapur); interim restraint in private dispute not grantable in writ jurisdiction; Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. and others, WRIT - C No. 2529 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, decided March 13, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The grievances raised by the petitioner can be adequately considered in the pending proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. ¶16

Radhey Shyam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 2529 of 2026

Radhey Shyam

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 12 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar, Shree Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha. Shri Alok Pandey, Advocate has filed vakalatnama for respondent no. 6.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to gata no. 114 and 115 situated in Village Khempur Chandai, Pargana Pashchimrath, Tehsil Bikapur, District Ayodhya which is recorded in the name of Radhey Shyam and other cosharers in the revenue records. With regard to aforesaid land an application for partition under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bikapur, District Ayodhya on 17.12.2025 which has been admitted and now the same have been transferred and is pending before the court of Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Bikapur, District Ayodhya

¶11

In the aforesaid circumstances it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had made an application to the Sub Divisional Officer wherein he ordered the Inspector in Charge, Police Station Bikapur to take action as per law for keeping peace. It has further been stated by the petitioner that the police authorities have not taken any action and accordingly the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following main prayer:

¶12

WRIC No. 2529 of 2026

¶13

¶14

“ (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no. 2 to 5 to restrain the opposite party no. 6 to 13 from raising construction over the land in question i.e. Gata No. 114 & 115 situated at Village Khempur Chandai, Pargana Pashchimrath, Tehsil Bikapur, District Ayodhya till disposal of the Case No. T202504230309564 under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 “Radhey Shyam versus Ashok Kumar Mishra & others” pending before the Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Bikapur, District Ayodhya.”

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that on the face of it the dispute are private dispute for which proceedings under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are already pending before the competent authority and it is open for the petitioner to move appropriate application in the pending proceedings in case he seeks to restrain the private respondent. It is further submitted that in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India a private dispute as raised by the petitioner in the present petition would not be maintainable.

¶16

Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the grievances raised by the petitioner can be adequately considered in the proceedings under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Apart from which restraining order as sought by the petitioner cannot be passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to private dispute and for the said prayer the writ petition would not be maintainable.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

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

¶19

March 13, 2026

¶20

J. K. Dinkar

¶21

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 12 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

Suresh Kumar Tripathi vs State Information Commission U.P. Thru. State Chief Information Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Union of India, Thru the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 2 Others vs JC14925212 H Ex Naik Vinod Singh

Harikesh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 22 Others

Dina Nath Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 3 Others

Victim X in Fir NO.0254 of 2023 Thru. Natural Natural Gurdian Her Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Lko. and 7 Others