Allahabad High Court
WRIC/12003/2025 of ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs COLLECTOR / ZILA ADHIKARI, SHARAVASTI AND OTHERS on 10 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 12003 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Ram Pheran Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents while Sri Pankaj Gupta has accepted notice on behalf of the Land
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 12003 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Heard Sri Ram Pheran Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents while Sri Pankaj Gupta has accepted notice on behalf of the Land Management Committee.
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. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of the mandamus, thereby commanding this opp. Party no.1 to 4 to restrain the op. party No.5 to 10 are not illegally disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners to adjacent the road side and not selling/transferring to other persons of the land in dispute i.e. Gatas no.2160 area 0.3830 hect., gata No.2170 area 0.2340 hect. and gata No.2166 area 0.2410 hect., situated in the Revenue village Ikauna, Dehat, Pargana & Tehsil Ikauna, District Shravasti during pendency of the Partition case No.T202508620212557 under section 116 Revenue Code, 2006, before the opp. party no.2, as contained in Annexure No.2 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."
2. Learned Standing counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition in as much as the petitioner seeks to restrain private respondents from interfering in his possession and
3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Pheran Dwivedi, Subhash Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Arvind Kumar Gupta And Others .....Petitioner(s) Collector / Zila Adhikari, Sharavasti And Others .....Respondent(s)
such an order cannot be passed in exercise of the powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in as much as respondent No.s 5 to 10 are private individuals and the appropriate remedy available to them is to file a suit before the court of competent jurisdiction and seek relief of injunction.
In light of the above, this Court after considering the rival contentions is of the considered opinion that the prayer made in this petition is not maintainable and no order can be passed in exercise of the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Apart from the above, the petitioner can claim remedy in proceedings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code which are already pending.
4. In light of the above, since in this petition the relief sought is against the private individuals, hence, the same is not maintainable and the petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
5. December 10, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 12003 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench