Smt Manu Yadav vs State Of Up And 9 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 19957 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Manu Yadav vs State Of Up And 9 Others on 30 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Kumar Birla

Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:99271-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18854 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt Manu Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagannath Singh,Surendra Nath Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
 

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

1. Heard Shri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed for following relief:-

"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2,3,4 and 5 to remove the encroachment of respondent no.8,9 and 10 and restore the possession of petitioner on her room and boundary situated on plot no.407 village Nibi Naluka Khurd, Tehsil, Karchhana Prayagraj according to law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 2006(2) AWC 1525, Smt. Shakti Kumari Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 01.02.2005 (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition).

3. Prima facie record reflects that the dispute between the parties is private in nature and the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which provide for ejectment of persons occupying land without title.

4. At this stage, in support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Shakti Kumari Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Others, 2006 (2) AWC 1525 and submits that alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar and the petition may be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly reflects that extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercised by this Court in the facts and circumstances of Smt Shakti Kumar Gutpa's case as the petitioner was an old lady aged about 90 years, living alone without any male members in the family. This is not so in the present case. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner is in service, therefore, on the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to consider this judgment for the purpose of invoking our extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In this view of the matter, the present petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy or other remedy as may be available to her in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 30.5.2024

Nitendra