RAM SURESH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/COLLECTOR BARABANKI AND 6 OTHERS
WRIC/7756/2025 · 2025-08-14
Brij Raj Singh, Sangeeta Chandra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 157425 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 157425 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47758-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7756 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Suresh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate/Collector Barabanki And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Shukla, Mohan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State-respondent nos.1 to 4.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main prayers:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding to the opposite parties nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate action and direct to the Respondent nos.5 and 6 not to dispossess to the petitioner from his land and House. ii) Issue any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii) Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner."
3. The counsel for the State-respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. He has referred to Annexure No.6 to the writ petition which is a Letter / Complaint made on 21.12.2024 by the petitioner to the Officer In-charge of Sampoorna Samadhan Divas at Tehsil Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.
4. We have perused the Letter/ Complaint dated
21.12.2024. It appears that the petitioner had bought some agricultural land on 05.08.2003 through registered Sale Deed and he was in possession of such land but private-respondents namely Dukh Ram son of Munney
and Ram Raj son of Munney have started interfering in his possession.
5. It is evident that the petitioner has tried to raise a private dispute before this Court, we cannot issue a Mandamus to the respondents to interfere in a private dispute that can be suitably redressed by the petitioner by moving an appropriate Court of law.
6. The writ petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 N.PAL Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench