Allahabad High Court
WRIC/29551/2026 of DINDAYAL Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS on 7 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29551 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Hiralal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Indra Mani Kushwaha, learned standing counsel for the state and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha. 2. The
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 29551 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 Hiralal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Indra Mani Kushwaha, learned standing counsel for the state and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Up Ziladhikari, Tehsil Sadar Chandauli, District Chandauli to decide the application dated 1.6.2026 of the petitioner within the stipulated period (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition)
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.3 to restrain the illegal construction of respondent nos. 5 to 7 over the arazi no.161, area 0.2060 hectare, situated at Village Sudhana, Pargana Narvan, Tehsil Sadar, District Chandauli".
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the recorded owner of plot no.161. He further submitted that Civil Suit No.484 of 2020 for injunction filed by the petitioner in respect to plot in question, is pending and interim injunction is operating. He further submitted that in spite of the interim injunction granted in the pending suit, gram sabha is constructing road in the bhumidhari plot no.161 belonging to the petitioner. He submitted Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hiralal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Dindayal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
that respondent authority be directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect to plot no.161.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that civil suit filed on behalf of the petitioner for injunction in respect to plot no.161 is pending and interim injunction is operating.
6. Since the petitioner has a remedy to file an application Under order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. in the pending civil suit, if there is any disobedience of the interim injunction order passed in the suit proceeding, as such writ petition for mandamus to restrain the respondent authorities, cannot be entertained.
7. No interference is required in the matter.
8. The writ petition is dismissed. October 8, 2026 C.Prakash WRIC No. 29551 of 2026 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad