Dismissed¶14

Jamid Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2026WRIC/3444/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT - C No. 3444 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), decided April 13, 2026; khadanja road construction over gata nos. 219, 220, 221, Village Pure Birbal, Tehsil Lalganj, Block Laxmanpur, District Pratapgarh; Gram Pradhan acting in individual capacity; no Gram Sabha resolution; private dispute; remedy of demarcation application; efficacious statutory remedy; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Gram Pradhan was acting in his individual capacity and not at the behest of the Gram Sabha, no resolution of the Gram Sabha having been filed; accordingly, the dispute raised is a private dispute which the petitioner can resolve by moving an appropriate application for demarcation of his land. ¶13

Jamid Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3444 of 2026

Jamid Ali

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 6 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dinesh Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 6 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

¶12

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to the construction of a khadanja road over the land situated at gata nos. 219, 220, and 221, at Village Pure Birbal, Tehsil Lalganj, Block Laxmanpur, District Pratapgarh. As per the allegations made in the present petition as well as in the representation submitted by the petitioner, it appears that the Gram Pradhan is responsible for constructing the said road over the land of the petitioner.

¶13

The Gram Pradhan is, however, acting in his individual capacity and not at the behest of the Gram Sabha, inasmuch as neither the allegations available on record nor has any resolution of the Gram Sabha been filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the dispute raised appears to be a private dispute. Such a dispute can be resolved by the petitioner by moving an appropriate application for demarcation of his land.

¶14

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, considering that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy. The petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

April 13, 2026 Ashish Dewal

¶16

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

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jamid Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamid Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Shankar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Union of India, Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India New Delhi and 3 Others vs Ex Hav Lalit Mohan Joshi (No 15366829 M)

Neelam Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Kanak Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 10 Others

Radheshyam vs State of U.P. Deptt. of Revenue Thru. Prin. Secy. and 3 Others

Rock and Barrel Developers Pvt. Ltd.Thru.Owner Prop.Ajay Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and 6 Others