NAGMA RUHI PERVIN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
WRIC/21970/2025 · 2025-09-17
Amitabh Kumar Rai, Saral Srivastava
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 73064 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 73064 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 21970 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4.
2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate and Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Kaushambi to restrain the construction over the plot of the petitioners i.e. plot nos. 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 73(Kha) situated at Village Makanpurwari, Pargana Kara, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to take necessary action against the Bho Mafiya who is illegally occupied the land in question i.e. plot nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 73(Kha) situated at Village Makanpurwari, Pargana Kara, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi and to maintain the original holding of the petitioners (Annexure No.2 and 4 to the writ petition) within a stipulated period. (iii). Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv). Allow the writ with cost in favour of the petitioner."
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the private respondents No.6 to 8 are raising constructions over the plots owned by the petitioners. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Balwant Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C. Nagma Ruhi Pervin And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s)
4. The dispute is essentially private dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents No.6 to 8 who are raising constructions over the land owned by the petitioners. In such view of the fact, the writ petition is not proper remedy. This Court cannot issue direction to the private persons under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy available in law. September 18, 2025 SS WRIC No. 21970 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad