Dismissed¶18

Kamla @ Smt. Kamla Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2026WRIC/3936/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226; dispute between two private individuals; writ against private party not maintainable; encroachment and illegal boundary wall; concrete mixture plant; Gata No. 400, Village Hasanpur Khevli/Bijnor, District Lucknow; tenure holder; alternative remedy of suit for permanent injunction; Lucknow Development Authority; State of U.P.; writ petition dismissed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. 3936 of 2026; decided 24.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be resorted to for resolution of a dispute between two private individuals; for that purpose the writ petition is not maintainable. ¶15

Kamla @ Smt. Kamla Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3936 of 2026

¶3

Kamla @ Smt. Kamla Sahu

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vaibhav Shukla, Gaurav Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Sri Roshan Babu Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 1 and Sri Sankalp Mihra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Lucknow Development Authority.

¶12

In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondent No. 4 is dispensed with.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the tenure holder and in possession of Gata No. 400 situated at Village Hasanpur Khevli / Bijnor, District Lucknow.

¶14

The grievance raised by the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 is running a concerete mixture plant and has encroached upon the land of the petitioner and accordingly has prayd for a direction to the State as well as Lucknow Development Authority to demolish the illegal boundary wall erected by respondent No. 4 on the land of the petitioner.

¶15

It is noticed that the grievance raised by the petitioner is against the private respondent and not against the State authorities. A writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot be resorted to for resolution of a dispute between two private individuals and for the said purposes the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶16

WRIC No. 3936 of 2026

¶17

¶18

We further noticed that the grievance of the petitioner can be adequately redressed by filing a suit for permanent injunction against private respondents before the court of competent jurisdiction where the grievance of the petitioner can be duly redressed for the reasons that the present writ petition is between two private individuals the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India would not be maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶19

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

¶20

April 24, 2026 Ravi/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamla @ Smt. Kamla Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla @ Smt. Kamla Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank Arm Branch C.O. Gomti Nagar Lucknow Thru. Authorized Officer Sri Rishikesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and 11 Others

Leelawati Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Gurmeet Kaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries Lko. and 5 Others

Maya Devi vs Union of India, Thru. Drm Izzat Nagar Dist. Bareli U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Gond @ Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Guljari Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others