Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51455 (ALL)

RAM PADARATH @ CHAGGAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/13475/2025 · 2025-04-30

Manish Kumar Nigam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68627 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13475 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Padarath @ Chaggan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Yadav,Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "Command and direct to the respondents authority not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioner in Gata no. 134 Rakba 1.3700 hectare, Gata no. 218 Rakba 0.0910 hectare, Gata no. 132 C Rakba 0.3420 hectare, Gata no.126 Rakba 0.1600 hectare Which are situated at Village Umarpur Niva Uperhar, Tehsil sadar, District Prayagraj. Command and direct to the respondents authority for compliance of the order dated 11.04.2025, passed in proceeding of under section 116 of U.P. Revenue code 2006, in case no. 7560/2025 "Rampadarath @Chaggan versus Surjan Singh and others" by the Sub Divisional Magistrate District Prayagraj." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, an order of status quo has been passed by the trial court but the same has not been complied with by the private respondents, who are defendants in the aforesaid suit. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that petitioner has remedy of filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. as the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to the proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for redressal of his grievance before the trial court itself. In case, such an application is moved, the same may be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties provided there is no other legal impediment. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad