Allahabad High Court
Raj Bahadur Maurya vs State Of Up And 7 Others on 25 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:184240
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24744 of 2024
Petitioner :- Raj Bahadur Maurya
Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Pal,Vinod Kumar Sharma
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 :-
" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Jaunpur (respondent no. 2) and concerned officials to provide the possession to the petitioner in pursuance to the report dated 04.04.2024 of Lekhpal (respondent no. 6) and the report dated 05.04.2024 of Revenue Inspector (respondent no. 5) submitted on the application dated 23.03.2024 filed by the petitioner before Sub Divisional Officer, Shahganj, Jaunpur (respondent no. 3) based on registered sale deed dated 07.05.2003 executed by the respondent nos 7 & 8 in favour of the petitioner regarding of the Arazi No. 2051 area about 0.291 hectare by deciding the petitioner's representation/application filed on 10.05.2024 before the respondent no. 2 and pending before him within a stipulated period as fix by this Hon'ble Court."
3. From the perusal of the writ petition as well as application , it is apparent that dispute of the petitioner is with the private respondent regarding possession of the private property.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that for such a relief a writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329. In case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) the Supreme Court has considered a large number of its earlier judgements and 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."
6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take the recourse to the remedy as available to him, for removal of the respondents who are allegedly in unauthorized possession over the land in dispute, under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Order Date :- 25.11.2024
PS
