BRIJENDRA PRATAP AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS
WRIC/9750/2025 · 2025-10-09
Jaspreet Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 168029 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 168029 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9750 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs:-
"(a) The grace of issuing any such writ or order, direction nature of mandamus that opposite party no.2 and 3 are passed order for strict compliance of law, wise section 24 U.P. Revenue Code for demarcation and boundaries be shown to the respondents. (b) Issue any such order, writ, direction of mandamus nature to settle the boundary dispute and determine the district boundary by scientific survey method. Without doing this, the game of economic exploitation in the name of getting the land occupied and released from occupation in flood and erosion affected villages should be stopped immediately. (c) Be kind enough to issue such an order of mandamus nature directing that the application dated 1st August 2025 given on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 petitioners be disposed of promptly by expressing a just, transparent, fair, legal and logical opinion." Having considered the aforesaid reliefs and noticing the basic Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Kumar Rastogi, Girijesh Sharan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Brijendra Pratap And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
pleadings in the writ petition, there is not an iota of any specific pleadings regarding the right of the petitioners how it is being infringed and if at all there is any alleged impleadment what remedy has been adopted by the petitioners since the alleged apprehension as expressed in the petition are duly covered with several reliefs which he can obtain under the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is absolutely misconceived and dismissed. October 9, 2025 ank WRIC No. 9750 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench