Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57261 (ALL)

MATHURA LAL PRAJAPATI v. STATE OF UP AND 8 OTHERS

CRLP/9782/2025 · 2025-05-14

Vivek Kumar Birla, Yogesh Dubey Joint Registrar Judicial

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79880-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9782 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mathura Lal Prajapati Respondent :- State Of Up And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sant Ram Nigam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J. 1. Heard Shri Brijesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shravan Kumar Dubey, learned AGA for the State respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to take legal and lawful action against the respondent no. 6 to 9, by lodging the first information report and conduct enquiry, in respect of illegal construction over the land of gata no. 541 being pond in nature, a recorded, with immediate effect. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to restrain the private respondents no. 6 to 9 from making illegal construction over the pond land of gata no. 541 immediately without committing any delay. iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents not make any kind of disturbance/interference in peaceful life of petitioner and his family in his house or not to touch/try to demolish his house in any manner. iv) Issue any other order or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper, in the favour of petitioner, in the present facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Admittedly, application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the same cause was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad vide order dated 27.05.2024 against which no revision was filed by the petitioner and present petition has been filed for the same cause of action whereas the petitioner has effective remedy under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code. 4. We, therefore, find that present petition is patently misconceived and is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Nitendra Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad