Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Lko ... on 30 June, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36802-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6146 of 2025
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Lko And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Garima Singh,Harshit Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Harshit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. In view of the proposed order, issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to Gata No. 185ka Min, measuring area 13 and half Dic., situated at Mauja Pue Khaira, Pargana and Tehsil Bhinga, District Shrawasti. It is submitted that with regard to the said Plot, a dispute had arisen with private respondents due to which the petitioner was constrained to file a Regular Suit No. 307 of 1999, 'Amit Kumar Vs. Imam Ali and others', before the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrawasti. The said Suit was decreed on 11.09.2000 and subsequently, an Execution Case No. 02 of 2007 was filed with respect to the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2000 and the execution case was concluded on 24.03.2009, wherein the possession of the disputed Plot was given to the petitioner.
4. It has been submitted that despite the aforesaid proceedings, when the petitioner commenced for construction on the said land, the private respondents are again interfering with the possession of the petitioner and, accordingly, in the present writ petition, a prayer has been made for direction to the State-respondents to ensure compliance of the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrawasti in execution proceedings and to restrain the private respondents from interfering the lawful possession of the petitioner. .
5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition but he has not disputed the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noticed that the court of competent jurisdiction has passed a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner with regard toPlot No. 185ka Min, measuring area 13 and half Dic., situated at Mauja Pue Khaira, Pargana and Tehsil Bhinga, District Shrawasti. Even the execution proceedings have culminated in favour of the petitioner, but despite the aforesaid judicial order, the private respondents are interfering in his possession.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the dispute is a private dispute and even though the court of competent jurisdiction has passed a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner but that itself will not confer any jurisdiction over this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is limited only to exercise of jurisdiction on the interference made by the State authorities, as described under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A private dispute is not maintainable to be considered and decided in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Apart from the above, we find that the Civil Court has sufficient powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC to pass appropriate orders in a situation, as raised by the petitioner in the present case and also we find that in case the orders of the Sub-ordinate courts are violated, then the cognizance can be taken by this Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
9. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not have any power to pass any orders, while on the other hand the petitioner has adequate remedy, as discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court again to move an appropriate application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
10. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.
[Shree Prakash Singh,J.] [Alok Mathur,J.]
Order Date :- 30.6.2025
kkv/
