Allahabad High Court
Virendra Yadav vs State Of Up And 6 Others on 19 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181315
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23303 of 2024
Petitioner :- Virendra Yadav
Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sagri, District Azamgarh to reinstate demarcation of holdings in respect of division of the shares in Gata No.67 area 1.0090 hectare and Gata No.342 area 0.1210 hectare situated in Village Daudpur, Pargana & Tehsil Sagri, District Azamgarh pursuant to order dated 20.03.2023 passed by respondent no.3 in Partition Suit No.7188/2022 (Jayprakash and others Vs. Omprakash and others) under section 116 UP Revenue Code, 2006 as well as to ensure its execution on the spot, within stipulated period.
ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sagri, District Azamgarh to decide the representation/application dated 02.01.2024 moved by the petitioner, within stipulated period (Annexure No.5)."
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance of final decree passed in suit u/s 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, petitioner was put in possession over the land which came in his share in partition suit. Thereafter, private respondents have dispossessed the petitioner from land which came in his share in pursuance to the decree passed in suit u/s 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
4. Contention of learned Standing Counsel is that from the averments made in the writ petition and arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that dispute of the petitioner is with private respondents No.4 to 7 regarding possession of his property and the proper remedy available to the petitioner is not this writ petition but to file a suit either under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or the C.P.C.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 after considering a large number of its earlier judgements held that writ petition is not the proper remedy in respect of the property dispute and the party should be relegated to seek appropriate remedy before the Civil or Revenue Court. Paragraph nos. 64 and 65 of the judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty (Supra) are extracted hereinbelow-:
"64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions.
65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority. 4. In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter."
6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy, as available to him, under the law.
Order Date :- 19.11.2024
Rishabh
[Manish Kumar Nigam, J.]
