Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10534 of 2018 Petitioner :- Prabhunath Pandey And 6 Others Respondent :- The District Magistrate, Allahabad And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the following relief:
"i. to direct the respondents to stop the construction of the toilet over the disputed plot no. 16A Area 0.2660 and Plot no. 16B Area 0.0170 total Area 0.2830 Hectare situate in the Village Chak Vishwanath, Post Office Naini (Arail), Pargana- Arail, Tehsil Karchhana District Allahabad Ante-status-quo may be maintained over the land in dispute."
In paragraph-3 of the writ petition it is stated that father of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 late Heera Lal filed a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 18 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sarki, (Junior Division), Allahabad for permanent mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the bhumidhari land. A copy of the plaint is also on the record. It is not disputed that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are sons of late Sri Heera Lal Pandey.
From a perusal of the material on the record it appears that the dispute is in regard to title of the bhumidhari land of the petitioners, for which a suit has already been filed.
In view of the above, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, has held that in the matter of property dispute ordinarily the Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not cause any prejudice to the interest of the petitioners if they seek other remedy under the law.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 SKT/-