Allahabad High Court

WRIC/17373/2026 of RAMJI @ RAMJEET Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS on 4 May 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17373 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(I) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3/ Sub Divisional Magistrate

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 17373 of 2026

Court No. - 36

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, 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. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(I) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3/ Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil-Sadar, District- Jaunpur to redemarcate the area of Gata No. 142/0.023 hectare of the petitioner, situated at Village- Umarpur, Pargana - Rari, Tehsil-Sadar, District -Jaunpur, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. (II). Issue, any other writ, order or direction under the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that application for demarcation filed by the petitioner was allowed and the boundary pillars have been installed. Petitioner has also constructed his wall. Now, the petitioner states that he has dispute with the private respondents, for that purpose, he prays that he has made a representation that the proceedings may be recommenced and the same shall be decided after hearing the other side.

3. The petitioner cannot compel any other person to be heard unless he has so desired and therefore, the writ petition is wholly misconceived. Further, the dispute of the petitioner is with the private respondents for which the writ petition is not maintainable. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Ramji @ Ramjeet .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under the law. May 5, 2026 Nitika Sri. WRIC No. 17373 of 2026 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA 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