Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31436 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abdul Rajjaq Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.4 to 7 not to disturb in respect of peacefully functioning of the petitioner's brick field i.e. M/s New Jahanabad Brick Field, situated at Milkinpur, Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar pursuant to illegal Kirayanama dated 31.10.2017 executed by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent no.7.
(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.2 i.e. District Magistrate, District Kanpur Nagar to take the appropriate action in view of the application dated 4.5.2019 as the petitioner requested therein to hold a proper inquiry in respect of illegal act of respondent no.4 to 7 and the respondents may be restrained to damage the articles and bricks in respect of petitioner's Brick Kiln, which is pending for final disposal before him, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
2. From perusal of record, it appears that in respect of land in dispute an agreement was made on 2.9.2002 between petitioner and respondent No.5, who is a private party. Subsequently, respondent No.5 executed tenancy in favour of respondent No.7 Vajhahat Khan. Petitioner claims that said tenancy is illegal and he should be allowed to continue his work peacefully on plot no. 279 area 1290 meters. It is further alleged that with regard to above, and for an enquiry against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for their illegal act, he has made representation dated 4.5.2019 before respondent No.2 i.e. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, but no decision has been taken till now.
3. When questioned, learned counsel for petitioner could not place any provision under which officials of District Administration may interfere in private property dispute of private individuals by granting any kind of injunction restraining respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from interfering in peaceful possession and occupation of petitioner. No such power is vested in District Authorities for entertaining a private property dispute. This remedy is available in common law by filing a suit for injunction.
4. Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Arshad