Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 90566 (ALL)

RAM MILAN AND 5 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIB/3473/2025 · 2025-09-08

Chandra Kumar Rai

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3473 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Prasad, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Babban Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents authorities to pass an appropriate and suitable order on the application dated 12/13.05.2025/26.05.2025. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Arazi No. 1132, 1139M, 1140M, 1143M, 778B, 778A, 778Ga, 790Kha, 801Kha, 796Kha situated in the village Amoi, Tappa Upraudh, Parg-Kranlit, Tehsil-Lalganj, District-Mirzapur not to be further transferred/Not to be changed its Nature of land, during the pendency of consolidation proceeding which is under trial state of Section 52 of the Act not to be further transferred/not to be create third party any interest. iii. Issue any other suitable writ, order, direction as this Hon'ble Court, may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the present case. iv. To award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners." 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that village is at the verge of de-notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, but private Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadhesh Prasad, Radhey Shyam Singh, Sachidanand Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Milan And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) respondents are transferring their share in the plot in question. He further submitted that writ petition is pending before this Court and interim order is operating, as such chak holders be restrained from creating third party interest in the plot in question. 4. The prayer for writ of mandamus against private party made in the instant writ petition cannot be allowed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed, accordingly. September 9, 2025 Neetu WRIB No. 3473 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad