Allahabad High Court

WRIC/17939/2026 of SUNITA KESHARI Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS on 6 May 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17939 of 2026 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has sought following

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 17939 of 2026

Court No. - 40

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has sought following relief; "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature commanding the respondent authorities specially UP-Ziladhikari, Sadar, District Mirzapur to decide the representation of petitioner dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure No.3) expeditiously within stipulated period as fix by this Hon'ble Court."

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 are trying to encroach upon the land of the petitioner.

4. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.4 is purely a private dispute and involves disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only on the basis of evidence, and extensive factual inquiries. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, no writ of mandamus can be issued against private individuals. It is also pertinent to note that the district authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere in a private dispute unless there is an imminent threat to law and order.

5. In such view of the fact, we do not find any ground to interfere in the present writ petition. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sunita Keshari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law. May 7, 2026 Sachin Mishra WRIC No. 17939 of 2026 2 (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead