Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 187039 (ALL)

NEERAJ KUMAR MISHRA ADVOCATE v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE CIVIL SECTT. LKO. AND 6 OTHERS

/11672/2025 · 2025-12-08

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Sangeeta Chandra

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11672 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties no.1 to 5 to take appropriate action against the opposite party no.6 and 7, by which they are stopping the petitioner from water boring in collusion with the local police. i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.4 to consider and decide the representation dated 18.10.2025 with a speaking and reasoned order, as contained in Annexure No.3 to this writ petition. ii. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a Regular Suit No.2821/24 which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali for a declaration of will produced by the opposite parties no.6 and 7 to be forged. On 25.10.2024 the learned trial court has passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner wherein defendants have been prohibited from selling, transferring and changing the title of the disputed property described in the plaint to anyone else. On 12.10.2025 the petitioner was digging a pit for installation of tubewell due to water problem in his house. Respondents no.6 and 7 who are sister and brother of the petitioner respectively, approached the police outpost Incharge of kasba Gasaiganj who along with Inspector Vikrant Singh and with other constables have approached the house of the petitioner and prohibited the petitioner from undertaking such boaring of the tubewell. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jay Kumar Soni Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Neeraj Kumar Mishra Advocate .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) order is only for restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest on the property in question on the basis of forged will produced by them. We have gone through the interim order dated 25.10.2024 passed in Regular Suit No.2821 of 2024, on application for temporary injunction in a suit for cancellation of will deed and permanent injunction. We find that there is no interim order granted against the plaintiff prohibiting him from making any boring of tubewell. The operative portion of the order only restrains the defendants from creating any third party rights or changing the nature of the property in question. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a copy of the order passed today in the instant writ petition before the SHO Gosaiganj, Lucknow who shall comply with the order passed by the learned trial court after carefully perusing the same as it has been drafted in Hindi which it is pre supposed that the SHO Gosaiganj can understand. December 8, 2025 mks WRIC No. 11672 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench