SMT HAZARA BEGUM AND ANOTHER v. State of UP AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/36441/2024 · 2025-04-20
Jayant Banerji
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 92591 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 92591 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59390 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36441 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Hazara Begum And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This petition has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute i.e. Arazi No. 389 (which is abadi land) situated in Village Dhabhka Tehsil Korh Tehsil Auraee, Auraee, District Sant Ravi Nagar, Bhadohi."
3. From perusal of Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, it seems that notice under Rule 115-C was issued under the Authority of the Collector to one Ajeej s/o Budhhu on 4.12.2013. The petitioners claim to be the wives of respectively Inayat Ali and Nasruddin who are allegedly sons of aforesaid Ajeej. It is their case that they had no knowledge of the proceedings as their father-in-law were handling the case and their husbands are working in Mumbai. This appears to be a proxy petition set up on behalf of alleged occupants of the plot in question who are recipients of the notice which is enclosed as Annexure-5 to this petition. The aforesaid notice under Rule 115-C is in respect of Arazi No. 338, but the allegation is that the respondents are disturbing their peaceful possession over Arazi No. 389. 4. Learned Standing counsel has pointed out that Plot No. 389 is recorded as a pond. However, in the Khatauni appearing on page 21 of this petition Plot No. 389 is recorded as abadi. 5. There is nothing to demonstrate that with respect to Plot No. 389 any action is proposed by the respondents against either the petitioners or other co-tenure holders. 6. For the reason aforesaid, this writ petition fails and, is,
therefore dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.4.2025 A.P. Pandey (Jayant Banerji, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad