Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 153581 (ALL)

SMT. GUDIYA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. RURAL DEVELOPMENT LKO. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIC/7064/2025 · 2025-07-29

Rajan Roy, Saurabh Lavania

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43748-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7064 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Gudiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Dinesh Kumar Gupta,Manish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Shri Utkarsh Kumar, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 7. The same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Utkarsh Kumar, learned counsel or the opposite party no. 7. While the petitioner alleges illegal interference by the police authorities at the behest of the private opposite party no. 7 in the petitioner's land/ house Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has instructions from the police authorities to inform the Court that there was a law and order problem on 10.07.2025, as such, the police interfered otherwise it is not interfering in a private and civil dispute and both the parties have been challaned under BNSS, 2023. We are not concerned with the private dispute between the petitioner and private opposite party. We are only concerned with the interference of the police. In this regard, we observe/direct that the police officials can interfere in such matters only if there is a law and order problem, apprehension of breach of peace, apprehension of commission of any crime or it has actually been committed or there is order of any court to be complied or there are other valid grounds in any law/statue for their interference. We, however, make it clear that we have not at all entered into question of title and possession, if any, involved in the matter pertaining to the land in question. The parties should get their rights, if any, adjudicated before the appropriate Court whether it be before the Civil Court or the Revenue Court. With these observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. . (Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench