Allahabad High Court
WRIC/36094/2026 of KAMLAWATI DEVI Vs STATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS on 8 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36094 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Naresh Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state- respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36094 of 2026
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Ram Naresh Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state- respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment from the land of the petitioner bearing Plot No. 135M area 0. 03 Decimal situated in Village - Harka, Hiranaha, Harka Hanumant Giri, Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, Tehsil
- Padrauna, District -Kushinagar.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, District Kushinagar to decide the application dated 20.05.2026 pending before him, as early as possible."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that allotment for residential purpose was made to the petitioner's husband on 17.7.1982 and after the death of the petitioner's husband, petitioner is in possession over the plot in question but certain persons are interferring with her possession, accordingly, petitioner filed an application dated 20.5.2026 before the authority concerned but the same has not been considered. He submitted that appropriate Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankit Kumar Singh, Ram Naresh Nigam Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kamlawati Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
direction be issued to the respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's application within a time-bound period.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.
5. The prayer made in the instant writ petition for mandamus cannot be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as private dispute cannot be settled in writ jurisdiction.
6. The writ petition is dismissed. October 9, 2026 C.Prakash WRIC No. 36094 of 2026 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad