Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45290 (ALL)

ISRAR IDOO ALI @ ISRAR AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS

WRIC/16696/2025 · 2025-07-07

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107188-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16696 of 2025 Petitioner :- Israr Idoo Ali @ Israr Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Saran Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The following prayer has been made in the writ petition: "(A) Issue a writ, order or direct the respondents authority not to interfere in peaceful possession situated at of the petitioner Khasara No. 3 area 0.3370 hectare, village Kamasin (Kada), Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi." 2. On query made by the Court from counsel for the petitioner as to the name of the person, who is allegedly interfering in the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner, he submits that it is respondent No. 14. He also submits that an application for demarcation filed by respondent No. 14 under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code has already been rejected. It is urged that in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed. 3. It is noteworthy that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 24048 of 2020 and the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and left it open to the petitioner to get the demarcation proceedings concluded, which were stated to be pending at that stage. The order records that there was a serious dispute between the parties regarding identity of the site at which constructions were being raised. The private respondent was claiming the said site as belonging to him. 4. After going through the entire material, we are of view that the dispute between the parties is of a private nature in respect of an immovable property. Merely because the demarcation proceedings have concluded, the petitioner would not become entitled to a writ of mandamus, which would practically be against a private party. 5. In such circumstances, we decline to entertain the petition and leave it open to the petitioner to avail civil remedy, if so advised. 6. The petition is dismissed with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad