Pappu Lal Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 147 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pappu Lal Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44272
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9421 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Pappu Lal Vishwakarma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avaneesh Kumar,Kamlesh Prasad,Ved Prakash
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"(a). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to 4 to restrain the respondent no.5 from interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the Arazi No.1485 measuring area 0.020 hect; forthwith.

(b). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to take appropriate decision over the application of the petitioner within stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the dispute of the petitioner is with the private respondent No. 5 regarding property in question and as such writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures annexed thereto. From the perusal of the same, it appears that the dispute of the petitioner is with private respondent No. 5.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 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.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under law.

Order Date :- 1.4.2025

Ved Prakash

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)